Fernand Deligny, a Cinema of Wandering and Slight Gestures
Born in Bergues in 1913 and raised in Lille, Fernand Deligny occupied a singular position between social work, pedagogy, anthropology, philosophy, and cinema, without ever quite belonging to any of these fields. In the late 1930s, after teaching in Paris and its suburbs, he was appointed a special needs educator at the asylum of Armentières, where he worked with children and adolescents classified as cognitively disabled, delinquent, or “ineducable”. Gradually, he would come to reject not only the disciplinary methods employed in such institutional settings but, more fundamentally, the ideology underpinning them: the imperative to categorise and normalise those deemed “abnormal”. Drawing on Marxist pedagogy, particularly on the work of Anton Makarenko and Henri Wallon, who questioned the hierarchy between educator and learner, Deligny turned instead to the concrete social and material conditions of the children’s lives. An early experiment in this direction was the creation, in 1948, of “Grande Cordée”: a loose network of temporary living arrangements and placements offering an alternative to young people otherwise condemned to institutional confinement.
Deligny’s radical endeavour would find its fullest expression in the Cévennes, where he settled in the late 1960s and remained until his death in 1996. The network he established there comprised several sites dispersed around the village of Monoblet, where a small group of autistic, mostly non-verbal children (around sixty children passed through it between late 1960s and mid-1980s) lived alongside Deligny’s adult collaborators.[1] This “experiment” was conceived neither as a school nor a clinic. There was no attempt to cure or educate the children; instead, their lives were structured around “customary” daily activities: building, cooking, making clothes, gathering wood and water, looking after animals, or simply moving about. These activities were neither therapeutic work nor mere reproductive labour. Rather, they provided a common material frame, a mode of existence, within which quotidian rhythms as such would became a form of care.
This approach was grounded in a distinction that Deligny had developed in his writing and practice: that between “doing” (faire) and “acting” (agir); between intentional, productive activity and gestures that happen, as it were, “pour rien,” devoid of any project or expected result.[2] It was precisely the non-productive and purposeless activity of autistic children that interested Deligny – not as something to be deciphered or corrected, but as a way of being that prefigured a world not organised solely around purpose and utility. Another important invention followed from 1969 onwards, when Deligny and his colleagues began mapping both their own customary routes through the local area and, on superimposed sheets of tracing paper, the children’s apparently aimless trajectories, which Deligny termed “wander lines”, lignes d’erre.[3] These drawings were not instruments of psychological interpretation, but a cartography of bodies, objects, and places.[4] Deligny would later also invoke the metaphor of l’arachnéen – a mode of relation akin to the shifting web of a spider, with no fixed centre, woven through repeated traversals, encounters, and anchor points.[5]
*
Cinema would offer another terrain for such wanderings. Indeed, the term Deligny later coined for the act of filming, “camering,” or camérer,points to the technical character of cinematic practice – the primacy of tool over human subjectivity – but also to the contingency at the heart of the camera’s encounter with objects. At a certain point, Deligny even refers to camerrer, which incorporates errer, “to wander,” into the term itself.[6] “Camering” can then be understood as the cinematic extension of the earlier cartographic practice of the Cévennes network: the camera as a peripatetic participant, following customary routes and journeys while remaining open to unexpected encounters.
Many of Deligny’s aphoristic reflections on cinema, developed in the late 1970s, are already operative in Ce gamin, là (1975). The “gamin” in question was Janmari, a non-speaking autistic boy whose arrival in 1967 was central to the establishment of the Cévennes network, and whose movements and routines became a recurrent subject of its cartographic practice. The film was made by Renaud Victor, a young self-taught filmmaker who spent several months living within the network before taking up the camera. Filming itself was absorbed into the community’s habitual activities; Victor and Deligny viewed the rushes together, so that the material became a means of ongoing reflection on practical and organisational matters. Seen retrospectively, the film stands as a practical instance of camérer: not simply filming from the outside, but letting the camera become enmeshed in the modes of existence it inhabits.[7]
However, it is the earlier Le moindre geste that remains the most representative of Deligny’s legacy. The film grew out of a preceding phase of his work in the Cévennes, at the moment when the “Grande Cordée” experiment was drawing to a close. The footage was filmed by Josée Manenti with a 16mm Paillard camera between 1962 and 1964, while Guy Aubert recorded the lengthy monologues of the protagonist Yves; images and words were thus dissociated from the outset. For lack of funds, the film lay unfinished for several years, until support from SLON, the radical film cooperative founded by Chris Marker, enabled Jean-Pierre Daniel to complete the montage. When the film premiered in Cannes in 1971, it was less the achievement of an authorial vision than the outcome of a discontinuous, markedly collective process.[8]
The film’s central figure, Yves Guignard, had been classified by experts as “ineducable” and “irrecoverable”; he had been living with Deligny’s group since the late 1950s.[9] He performs something close to a version of himself: after escaping from an institution with another boy, Richard, the two wander through the countryside until taking refuge in an abandoned house, where Richard falls into a pit. Yves tries unsuccessfully to free him, then wanders off alone; the adventure ends when Any, a girl from a nearby farm, meets Yves and leads him back to the institution. The narrative functions less as a dramatic sequence of events than as a provisional canvas within which Yves moves, speaks and handles objects.
There is an evident affinity here with Deleuze’s account of post-war cinema, especially the rupture he locates in Italian neorealism. In those films, the “sensory-motor links” that enabled protagonists to perceive and respond to situations have unravelled, giving way to what Deleuze calls “pure optical and sound situations.”[10] The figure of the child holds a special place in this rupture: from Rossellini and De Sica to Truffaut, war, deprivation, and trauma are refracted through the bodies of children.[11] For Deleuze, the neorealist child thus becomes the privileged figure of the voyant – a “seer” whose helplessness and immobility make him “all the more capable of seeing and hearing.”[12] Yet in a way, Le moindre geste pushes this rupture in a different direction. While the Deleuzian passage from acting to seeing suggests a new autonomy of perception, Deligny’s faire–agir distinction splits apart the very category of action. Whereas Deleuze wonders what becomes visible when action fails, Deligny considers the gestures that emerge once things are no longer bound by their purpose. It is perhaps this shift that generates the peculiar, uneasy formal tension of the film: it insists on the “slightest gestures” even before they have been brought into the realm of purpose or interpretation – something that cinema can show without claiming that it signifies anything.[13]
Language undergoes a similar decentring. The opening question of Le moindre geste – “Why should speech belong to someone, even if that someone takes it?”[14] – establishes the problem that Yves’s speech will enact throughout the film: can words, or a discourse, be the expression or property of an individual speaking subject? His delirious stream of words is an assemblage of linguistic fragments already in circulation – prayers, speeches by De Gaulle, things heard on the radio or said by a neighbour. Speech is something that emerges socially, a discourse that doesn’t belong to a single subject, passing through them as much as coming from them.[15] The same radical stance is evident in the treatment of sonic material: voices, noises, and images often proceed in disconnection rather than being locked in synchronicity. As noted, this disjunction was already built into the film’s making: the monologues were recorded separately, while Daniel, Aimé Agnel and Jean-Pierre Ruh used sound effects and archival material to compose a soundscape that at moments approaches the density and raw materiality of musique concrète. At the time, Agnel was a member of Pierre Schaeffer’s Service de la recherche at the Office de Radiodiffusion Télévision Française, an important hub of sonic innovation and experimentation,[16] and something of this agitated spirit remains audible in the film.
The displacements in action, speech and sound, as staged in Le moindre geste, finally raise another question: where does it leave us, the spectators? In 1976, five years after the screening of Le moindre geste at Cannes, Serge Daney offers a way of framing this problem when he invokes Deligny in a critique of Forman’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Forman, Daney notes, is merely “playing with the walls” of the asylum. The characters in the film may break through them on our behalf, but the spectator’s secure position on the outside remains unchanged. In contrast, Deligny seeks to “dynamite” both “the word and the thing” – the category of madness and the institution that sustains it – while “plugging the camera into another space.” Once the institutional barrier collapses, so does “the position of the camera and, with it, the position of the viewer”.[17] The question, then, is no longer simply how “madness” is depicted in a film, but from where, or better, from what distance, we are observing it.
Still, this breakdown of walls and positions is not a simple act of liberation, as it carries the risk of what Daney calls the mauvaise rencontre, the “bad encounter.”[18] Abolishing distance offers no guarantee of connection, since it may still lead to misunderstanding. But on the other hand, it is precisely this possibility of failure that allows the other to remain irreducible, and to avoid sympathetic, reassuring identification. Read in this way, Daney’s remarks point toward the ethical and political core of Deligny’s cinematic practice: the possibility of relation, even community, without the guarantee of understanding or assimilation.
*
Another, perhaps more oblique “wander line” emerges in the opening credits of Truffaut’s Les Quatre Cents Coups (1959), where Deligny is listed in the acknowledgements alongside names such as Jean-Claude Brialy and Jeanne Moreau – not to mention André Bazin, honoured in the ornate epitaph that follows. The detail is easily overlooked, yet it opens onto another lineage connecting Deligny’s critical pedagogy with cinema.
Based on Deligny’s correspondence with Truffaut, his role in the production of Les Quatre Cents Coups was something like an informal advisor. While the film’s story and its lead character famously mirror Truffaut’s own troubled childhood, Deligny appears to have influenced two key moments in its conception, both of which relate precisely to the child’s struggle against the institutions seeking to explain and contain him. One is the pivotal scene of Antoine Doinel’s conversation with the psychologist, which Truffaut completely rethought after Deligny dismissed the scripted dialogue as “embarrassing and artificial”.[19] Instead of explaining the boy’s mental state through psychiatric terms, Truffaut thus improvised a deceptively simple conversation that allows Doinel to speak on his own terms, exposing the absurdity of the institutional reason that fails to grasp the complexity of his experience. The second is the iconic sequence shot closing the film: Doinel’s escape from the Observation Centre for juvenile delinquents, the drift that carries him away from oppressive carceral spaces and toward the fluid, open topography of the sea.[20]
Truffaut again sought Deligny’s advice a decade later while making L’Enfant sauvage, and even sent an assistant to the Cévennes to observe a boy staying there. He remarked, in a letter to Deligny, that the resemblance of this boy to the abandoned “wild child” Victor of Aveyron, whose story the film would recount, was “extremely disconcerting,” and that the boy could serve as a model for the actor in the film (Jean-Pierre Cargol).[21] Deligny thus appeared twice, at precisely the point where Truffaut’s films were dealing with the experience of a child whose behaviour does not conform to the discourse imposed upon him: first the delinquent, subjected to institutional interrogation, then the supposedly uncivilised child, subjected to pedagogical and scientific scrutiny.
But perhaps the bonds of gratitude between Truffaut and Deligny went deeper still: “Deligny had known Bazin from the period of the Travail et Culture association, and Bazin had sought his advice when trying to secure the release of the adolescent Truffaut from the Villejuif Observation Centre.”[22] The symmetry is uncanny: as Truffaut consulted Deligny on how to portray troubled children in his two films, so too did Bazin consult Deligny – around ten years earlier, in 1948 – on how to help the adolescent Truffaut.
The wander lines of Deligny’s life and work intersected with the different territories of cinema in surprising, sometimes opaque, but always fruitful ways. Neither filmmaker nor theorist in any conventional sense, Deligny became an interlocutor for cinema precisely because it offered another terrain on which to contest the violence of institutions and normative discourses. It also offered as way of attending to the bodies, gestures, and modes of existence beyond the grasp of the systems and logics seeking to contain them.
Nil Baskar
[1] Sandra Alvarez de Toledo, “Pédagogie poétique de Fernand Deligny,” Communications, no. 71 (2001), 248.
[2] Fernand Deligny, Les Détours de l’agir ou le Moindre geste (Paris: Hachette, 1979), reprinted in Fernand Deligny: Œuvres, ed. Sandra Alvarez de Toledo (Paris: L’Arachnéen, 2007).
[3] Alvarez de Toledo, “Pédagogie poétique,” 264.
[4] Deligny, Œuvres, especially “Cahiers de l’Immuable.”
[5] Cf. Fernand Deligny, L’Arachnéen et autres textes (Paris: L’Arachnéen, 2008).
[6] Fernand Deligny, “Camérer” (1983), in Œuvres, 1742–45. The reference to “camerrer” is found in Fernand Deligny, “Camérer #2” (1978), in Camérer. À propos d’images, ed. Sandra Alvarez de Toledo, Anaïs Masson, Marlon Miguel, and Marina Vidal-Naquet (Paris: L’Arachnéen, 2021), 26.
[7] Sandra Alvarez de Toledo, “Ce Gamin, là,” Cinéma du réel Archives; Deligny, Œuvres, “Ce Gamin, là” (1975), 1039–57.
[8] Deligny, Œuvres, “Le Moindre Geste (film, 1962–1971),” 598–606.
[9] Deligny, Œuvres, “Le Moindre Geste (film, 1962–1971),” 602–7.
[10] Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 2: The Time-Image, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 2.
[11] Alvarez de Toledo notes: “One might ask whether the physical and psychic mobility of children left to themselves, outside school, did not contribute to the invention of the ‘documentary style’ that made Italian neorealist cinema a reference point for a renewed ethics of the image.” Alvarez de Toledo, “Pédagogie poétique,” 254.
[12] Deleuze, Cinema 2, 3.
[13] Perhaps one may also hear in the film’s title a speculative resonance of the medieval geste, the heroic deed preserved in the chanson de geste. Yet where the epic narrates exceptional actions, the film reverses the logic: this is an epic of the moindre, of gestures too slight, repetitive, apparently insignificant to enter the heroic economy of action. Even its rudimentary adventure – escape, wandering, the endangered companion – displaces heroic agency: Yves fails to help Richard, while his own ultimate “rescue” is performed by the girl.
[14] “Pourquoi faudrait-il que la parole appartienne à quelqu’un, même si ce quelqu’un la prend?”
[15] Marlon Miguel, “General Introduction,” 26–27. Deligny’s formulation is: “Pourquoi faudrait-il que la parole appartienne à quelqu’un, même si ce quelqu’un la prend ?”, quoted from Deligny, Œuvres, 608.
[16] Deligny, Œuvres, “Le Moindre Geste (film, 1962–1971),” 603.
[17] Serge Daney, “Réserves (Vol au-dessus d’un nid de coucou),” Cahiers du cinéma, nos. 266–67 (May 1976): 75–77. Daney places Deligny alongside Franco Basaglia, R. D. Laing, and Maud Mannoni as figures who not only attempted to represent “madness” differently, but to alter the conditions under which it is defined and contained.
[18] Daney, “Réserves,” 76.
[19] Fernand Deligny to François Truffaut, August 20, 1958, archives of Les Films du Carrosse, file “Fernand Deligny.”
[20] Alvarez de Toledo, “Pédagogie poétique,” 254.
[21] François Truffaut to Fernand Deligny, November 15, 1968, and Fernand Deligny to François Truffaut, November 22, 1968, in Bernard Bastide, ed., “Correspondance François Truffaut-Fernand Deligny,” 1895. Mille huit cent quatre-vingt-quinze, no. 42 (2004): 77–110.
[22] Sandra Alvarez de Toledo, “Le Moindre Geste (1964–1971),” Trafic, no. 53 (Spring 2005): 63.