Visions du Réel – How to look forward: An in-depth conversation with Philippe Bischof

Founded in 1969, the documentary film festival of Nyon was known as a rare place in Western Europe where one could see films from the Soviet world. Following historical changes, the festival reshaped its identity under the direction of Jean Perret, who proposed the name “Visions du Réel” in 1995. The name hints at the Parisian film festival Cinéma du réel, which represented the American tradition of “direct cinema” as well as the French tradition of “cinéma-vérité”; at the same time, the word “visions” stresses the visionary, subjective, and artistic perspectives within the documentary genre. This successful idea has become a magnet for generations of filmmakers who today are gathered under the label of “creative documentary”. A festival of world premieres with a renowned Industry section, Visions du Réel has defended this double commitment — both political and artistic — over the last thirty years.

Under the directions of Luciano Barisone (2011-2017) and Émilie Bujès (2017-2026), the festival has expanded, adding new sections and diversifying its audiences and offer. On the one hand, the film selection, at least in the competitive sections, has enhanced the blurring of the boundaries between documentary and fiction, thus reinforcing the identity of the festival. On the other hand, we find more and more films that, probably under pressure from current political urgencies, seem to renounce artistic research and “use” the form of film in order to send a clear message or denunciation. In the epoch of post-truth, deepfakes, and artificial intelligence, is nostalgia for facts, scientific neutrality, or objectivity emerging again? Would this endanger the medium specificity of film and the artistic possibilities connected to this specificity? Or should we rather embrace art and fiction as a training ground to critically navigate our epoch?

The change of artistic direction at Visions du Réel in Nyon is an occasion for reflection that should go beyond the technical questions concerning the management of a successful festival. How should a festival that is both artistically and politically committed interpret our epoch? For such a task, the festival has the chance to rely upon Philippe Bischof as the president who will guide this transition. Filmexplorer knows him from the time when he was responsible for the Cultural Department of the City and Canton of Basel and appreciates his propensity to look at situations from the wider angle of general cultural politics facing contemporary challenges.

I meet him early in the morning in the welcoming Piazza of the festival, one of the best innovations of the last years in Nyon. The usually pulsating meeting point is now quiet, the focused energy of Philippe Bischof becoming the landmark of the Piazza.

*

Giuseppe Di Salvatore (GDS): You’re at your first edition as president of the festival and already have to guide a delicate transition towards a new artistic direction. Before looking at the future, what were the keywords that convinced you to assume responsibility for a festival like Visions du Réel?

Philippe Bischof (PB): Firstly, a deep conviction in the quality and importance of the festival. I find the blend of artistic and subjective approaches to important issues of the present and the past so crucial today — they are a prerequisite for us to engage with reality. Secondly, I really like this mix of a small town and a festival that isn’t all glitz and glamour. Visions du Réel is a festival focused on content, and it is highly regarded internationally. It perfectly suits my personal interests, and I believe that such a content-focused approach is very important today in terms of cultural policy. Moreover, the atmosphere at the festival is amazing — everyone recognises it. And there have been no skeletons in the cupboard, incredible but true: The festival is in very good shape. The people on the team are great, and the artistic director Émilie Bujès is doing a fantastic job. All of that together made the decision very easy for me and reinforced the willingness to face the challenges of the future.

I see potential and room for development on all levels, but especially regarding this space for debate and reflection, for in-depth discussion.

GDS: Yet, I know you as someone who likes challenges. You’re not an administrator. Where do your ambitions for this festival lie?

PB: The comfortable thing about the situation is that we have a very solid basis from which to focus on important questions. First: Questions regarding the impact of artificial intelligence and streaming platforms on all film festivals and the film industry as a whole. Second, questions about the infrastructure and its development. The festival has nearly doubled in size in a short period of time — where is it headed, how can we be sustainable? Third, the desire to become even more firmly established in German-speaking Switzerland — for which I am, I hope, the right person. And fourth, I believe in art’s role in critically questioning reality. What does this mean for the future of a festival dedicated to non-fiction cinema? How far can — or should — we go, for example, with new formats and debates? All of these challenges really resonate with me. Thanks to my deep conviction in the quality of this festival, I am motivated to tackle all these issues together with the entire Board, the Co-Directors, and their teams.

GDS: Facing this agenda, a change in the artistic direction is both an opportunity and a delicate phase. I think that the richness of the offer for a growing festival can also become an element of weakness at the moment when the festival is searching for a new orientation of its identity — provided that a new orientation is needed. The festival is successful, but one should anticipate possible criticalities. Do you imagine a transition in the spirit of continuity, or do you see value in testing new impulses, perhaps even embodying new visions?

PB: To be clear: We are not seeking a new identity, but rather its timely development. I’m persuaded that a new artistic director must be able to and should have the opportunity to introduce new ideas, and should be supported in doing so. In this sense, continuity will be limited to the solid structure the festival already has, while serving as the benchmark for discussions about possible changes. All changes must start from convincing ideas and be financially feasible. I think the most dangerous thing in the cultural sector is not thinking early enough about change, because things outside are moving at an incredible pace. Radical political or technological changes can happen very quickly, thus threatening our very existence, our form, or our purpose. And a festival should strive to be proactive rather than reactive. During the wonderful opening event with Alain Berset, I noticed that people have a strong need for political content, but next year a completely different mood might dominate and, who knows, in two years there might be a greater need for fun. My role as president of the Foundation Board is to guarantee that we have a clear framework and a good strategic plan, but we need and want an artistic director who will work with the entire team, with us, and with the community to develop and implement compelling artistic proposals — the Foundation Board is not a Programme Board! We are still in the midst of strategic deliberations, but personally, I would suppose that the core components of the festival will continue to be the high-quality programme and its mediation, the focus on youth and new audiences, the industry sector as a marketplace to facilitate and support production, funding, and distribution as well as professional networking, and the idea of a forum as an interactive space for debate and reflection. How these should be shaped: that is the task of the artistic director and the entire team to come up with concrete ideas.

I see potential and room for development on all levels, but especially regarding this space for debate and reflection, for in-depth discussion. A good example of this potential this year was the participation of Laura Poitras, which gave rise to a thematic thread around investigative journalism and filmmaking. Such thematic threads are important within the festival’s debate space. Or take the moving film on femicide by Giulia Montineri: it would be a very effective way to spark discussion around a theme with which Switzerland obviously also has a problem. A festival like Visions du Réel would be a relevant space for such a public discussion. We could also say: the Di-Visions du Réel that define our present could come together here.

GDS: As Filmexplorer, we are also convinced that the discursive dimension of a film festival is becoming more and more essential — and we contribute to it. The wonderful opportunity for social gathering around films should become an occasion to rediscover the importance of discussion in the public sphere. At the same time, don’t you also see the risk that a strong thematic orientation might draw us away from the focus on this specifically cinematographic mixture of fact and fiction that constitutes the specificity of Visions du Réel?

PB: As I said earlier: the programme comes first, and then topics for debate can be derived from it. Émilie Bujès has greatly expanded the concept of non-fiction film, and I think that’s absolutely right and good. She has said time and again, “We select and defend a non-fiction cinema that is free from definitions and often flirts with fiction.” I’m not willing to take a step back from this — that’s a clear statement from me. This reflection has to continue, reinterpreted by the new artistic director. Of course, we need to be aware of this fictional dimension, even more so today with artificial intelligence. How are images created? What do we perceive as real, what are real facts? I mean this from both the filmmakers’ and the spectators’ perspectives. The focus is on the question of how realities, perceptions, and observations are transformed into films, so that we can acquire the necessary tools to understand what actually happens to the images and what filmmakers do with them. If I could make a wish for Visions du Réel on its 60th anniversary in 2029, it would be that, in addition to the influence the festival has within the international non-fiction context, it would also play an even stronger role in cultural politics.

Visions du Réel won’t become a human rights festival but it will always remain a festival committed to political and social issues.

GDS: It is certainly a delicate balance that must be found between political and artistic commitments. The world of documentary festivals is growing, and an international festival of premieres like Visions du Réel faces global competition. This is why I think that only a sharp profile can be meaningful in a strategic vision for the future. With its artistic and creative accents, Visions du Réel already has an identity that could protect it from colliding with major festivals such as the International Documentary Festival Amsterdam or CPH:DOX in Copenhagen — or with the Festival du film et forum international sur les droits humains here nearby in Geneva. Human rights film festivals have the wind in their sails and offer an easy solution for growing one’s audience. But art itself can be a political gesture, through the criticism and complexity it brings to discourse.

PB: Absolutely and hopefully! This point is incredibly important: Complex art can facilitate complex debates in a language that should be accessible to as many people as possible. I mentioned earlier, when we were talking about the debate space, that it always has to be connected to the programme, to the screened films. For me, aesthetic and artistic formats — cinematic ones in the most contemporary way — should take precedence. What we mustn’t underestimate is that the production and the funding markets are driven by themes. Right now, human rights topics are very attractive for fundraising; I’m critical of this, because the result is often a selection of works that, while somewhat mainstream artistically, do capture the spirit of the times. At the same time, it’s also important that these themes currently take precedence in all areas — literature, theatre, even music. The world is in a terrible state when it comes to human rights. So we should talk about it – and bring the awful things that are happening to light. Now, a festival cannot — and should not — dictate themes to filmmakers, but rather make good artistic choices. Art remains at the forefront, I am absolutely clear about that. Visions du Réel won’t become a human rights festival, but it will always remain a festival committed to political and social issues. From that perspective, the question is rather — as you rightly point out — to what extent an engaged festival can show that the greatest political force of the arts does not lie in political messages but in the unique form of expression, which can reach layers of people that other fields cannot. In direct political terms, other spheres are much stronger – we know that. We should approach art with an open mind and a willingness to learn and unlearn in order to shape our collective imaginations — which is a very political act these days.

A good example of what I mean is the artist and filmmaker Hito Steyerl. Everyone knows she is deeply committed, fearless, and speaks her mind. All her work is political, but it’s of tremendous aesthetic intelligence. Or yesterday, I listened to a wonderful Q&A with the Moroccan artist and filmmaker Meriem Bennani after the projection of Bouchra: so intelligent, so nuanced, and full of humour. The way she brilliantly speaks about her artwork — through which she talks about the oppression she faced in her daily life as a lesbian Moroccan woman, and about queer politics without even mentioning the word — through ironic and biting stories, full of emotion, and her incredibly powerful animated images. For me, that’s where the magic lies. I see Visions du Réel as a festival that highlights the political force of art, the engaged presence of art.

GDS: Let’s return to the question of the size of the festival. I understand the pressure from sponsors and their desire for ever better numbers, but a festival like Visions du Réel would definitely change its identity if it evolved towards the model of big events such as the Montreux Jazz Festival, for example — where one meets so many people who have nothing to do with jazz music. Moreover, it is a question of profile: should a festival try to satisfy an ever-increasing number of people or, faithful to its identity, should it avoid a merely reactive attitude and instead embrace a propositional one? Should a festival even dare to accept shrinking a little — for example, by having fewer films in the programme?

PB: Well, that is a very interesting question, and the answer is complex. First: The pressure does not come only from outside, if at all; it is also something one observes very clearly within management teams. Numbers simply fascinate everyone. Doing more, receiving more submissions, is always a sign of appeal and activity — that applies to us in the cultural sector in general. By the way: The festival has never screened so many films, and we have never received so many submissions: 3,700 — that is insane. So the pressure and the game with numbers come from both inside and outside. I have experienced this myself in many of my functions – after all, we’re all trained in capitalism.

And of course, at a certain level, one is also forced to do more. Why? Mainly because public funding is declining. There is no getting around that. We are facing cuts just like everyone else. Our way out is through sponsors, the box office and the restaurant/bar, and that is the only path forward, and there, again, higher numbers are the goal. And to attract new sponsors, you often have to come up with something new. Personally, I think that Visions du Réel has reached a size at which it could certainly remain as it is. But perhaps we, too, simply need to generate more revenue to offset cuts in public funding — for example, from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. The next five or six years will be even more difficult, and we may simply be able to afford less than we do now. However, showing fewer films doesn’t amount to much of a savings. But if you need a quiet afternoon — for the team and the audience — then that’s a legitimate reason too.

Returning to the question of sponsors, I do not feel any pressure from them at Visions du Réel to be more successful — probably also because we've been very successful lately. They can be happy with the excellent numbers. The Mobiliar, for example, our fantastic main partner, did not even ask a single question about it during all the meetings we had We are speaking on a completely different level. And I think what is really encouraging to see is that good partners such as The Mobiliar or other philanthropic foundations are currently mainly interested in impact. You can really feel that. The discussion is moving the impact goals in the direction of democracy and social cohesion — there is a great deal of concern about disinformation and manipulation, too.

GDS: Yes, I also have the impression that there is a certain delay in the public sector, which seems to have become stuck in old-fashioned quantitative models of marketing and efficiency. The private sector appears to be more up to date: not only in the domain of philanthropy, but also in marketing, where ethical questions have become commonplace. We see this in Filmexplorer’s fundraising activities as well.

PB: You’re right. You are right in the sense that there is generally a certain tendency to downsize in the name of financial and organisational health, to avoid the fast-paced dynamics of the market and to consolidate the offerings. For us, this is certainly one approach we will discuss with the new artistic director, who will have the freedom to phase out certain elements and propose new priorities, always respecting the strategic framework. For me, it’s important to avoid the misconception that less automatically means cheaper, while also keeping the audience in mind — they should be able to find their way and not feel overwhelmed. That’s the most important criterion for me in this matter: with what density or volume of offerings can we best reach and engage the audience? A final word on this: Unfortunately, cultural funding (myself included) over the past 20 years has been so focused on numbers — to legitimize public investments and our own relevance — that we now, in times of tighter budgets, must develop a different culture of legitimisation that is more qualitative.

I would not say that the pressure to meet numerical targets is overwhelming right now, but the pressure to remain visible is insane.

GDS: As for the questions of democracy and manipulation, one specific problem we observe at festivals is the fact that they invest more and more in their own discursive machinery — newspapers, podcasts, interviews, even criticism! — which ultimately amounts to promotion. As an independent critical voice like ours, we see less and less interest from festivals in collaboration. Except for the American majors such as Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, we see less and less space for plurality and critical diversity.

PB: In an ideal world, there would be a critical reflection that is constructive and engaged, meaning driven by genuine interest rather than sensationalism. The problem is that this tendency, which you describe so accurately, is itself a product of the situation. It is merely a reaction to the evolution of the media landscape. Unfortunately, it is not only cultural media and reporting that are declining; there is also a larger, more general decline in the reliability and quality of information provided by the mainstream media. Then people begin taking matters into their own hands and producing coverage themselves.

Perhaps I can connect this to what we were saying earlier about quantity and numbers. I would not say that the pressure to meet numerical targets is overwhelming right now, but the pressure to remain visible is insane. You have to be permanently visible. Therefore, I think it is more about building healthy partnerships with media outlets with whom you genuinely share an interest, and saying: “Hey, let’s be honest — we are both under pressure, and we both want a critical public. You can write critically about us too, but let’s work on solid research.” It is not about buying one another’s support, but about forming an alliance.

GDS: I believe sharing an interest is an important point when it comes to collaboration and visibility. Perhaps we should not be so afraid of the huge cultural offer and the pressure for general visibility — I mean visibility for a “generic” public. When we observe younger generations, I have the impression that we should change our perspective and think more in terms of a plurality of niche publics rather than a generic public. The internet generation has shaped itself through such different and unpredictable paths that it is quite rare to find common ground.

PB: Yes, reality has become even more complex, and plurality is central to audience engagement. We need to consider all possible generations. If you look around here at Visions du Réel, there really is a beautiful mix of young and older people in the audience, but older people make up more than half, I guess, and they still read the “reference media”. This means that we must maintain a strong communicative presence in this demographic field while simultaneously taking a different approach for other target groups on entirely different channels. 
The methods and styles used to reach different target audiences may vary, but ultimately, both older and younger people need a frame of reference within which they can make sense of the information they receive, a kind of narrative. Precisely because so much information is available everywhere, yet is random and disorganised, the question eventually arises: What is truly important amid all this abundance? Of course, this concept of “important” is relative, again, but I mean important here in the sense that every person needs a connection to something bigger, to a world to which he or she belongs; both young and old people need this, especially today. That is why we must try, in a certain sense, to connect these bubbles — in the sense of Sloterdijk’s bubble theory — through specific narratives. A film festival like Visions du Réel can offer precisely this kind of narrative.

GDS: From this perspective, a festival has a formidable advantage because, rather than searching for pre-existing common ground, it has the opportunity to create a new one on site. And it does so through the shared experience that the festival can offer. Again, concerning the public, it is less a question of satisfying pre-existing needs than of creating moments of shared experience through a propositional attitude.

PB: Yes, a festival can provide a framework for the public — in the sense of Habermas’s reflections on the structure of the public sphere — in which one says: “This is what we now propose to experience and discuss together.” And I believe that is a crucial point for a festival. I completely agree with you on that: in order to have a critical public sphere, you need a shared framework; otherwise, there is no point of reference at all — and thus no meaningful debate. And that is precisely where the true art lies: in creating such a framework without reducing complexity, without oversimplifying content, in a way that is open and clear at the same time. A framework in which a plurality of opinions counts for more than any form of hierarchy.

GDS: And I see this task as a duty. We are fortunate enough, in Switzerland, to be able to create such an open space for public discussion. Therefore, we must do it.

PB: We need to take a bold approach to cultural politics through art. That, essentially, is the heart of the matter. And that brings us back to where we started: a festival like Visions du Réel offers a fantastic opportunity for this. And I can say: From the many conversations I have had here with all kinds of people, I can sense that the spark is catching on. Especially through non-fiction cinema films, especially through critical documentaries with a strong artistic approach. The spark is there.

GDS: Thank you very much for the inspiring conversation!