Watch Le concours

Le concours

Le concours is a movie starring Alain Bergala, Xanaë Bove, and Emmanuel Chaumet. With LE CONCOURS the director will delve into the daily life of the Parisian cinema school, la Fémis, where a specific Republican ideal of excellence...

Other Titles
The Competition, Pääsykokeet - unelmana elokuva, The Graduation, Antagningsprovet - att ha film som dröm, Egzaminy wstępne
Running Time
2 hours 1 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Claire Simon
Emmanuel Chaumet, Claire Childeric, Xanaë Bove, Alain Bergala
Audio Languages
English, Deutsch, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

With LE CONCOURS the director will delve into the daily life of the Parisian cinema school, la Fémis, where a specific Republican ideal of excellence is practiced and entry into which can be summed up as follows: "everyone's equal, but only the best get in..." Through the admission process, the hard work all year and the graduation exams, LE CONCOURS will establish a portrait of our relationship to excellence in the Art world and of one of the most prestigious art school in France. A place of culture where generations intermingle.

Comments about documentary «Le concours» (22)

James Mendez photo
James Mendez

I saw this movie last night, and to be honest, it didn't live up to my expectations. The film, like the book, centers on a man who gets a call from a woman he once knew who is now married to another man. He is given the opportunity to say goodbye to the person he once knew and one of his friends, and then he is given a job to do in order to pay off a debt he has incurred. This movie is based on a novel by Patrick Marber. I never read the book, but I knew about the book. In the book, the main character, Michael is an introvert who is aghast to his life. He is an odd man who is driven to write and his desire to write is always on his mind. The guy is a writer. He is not the most sociable man in the world, but he is a writer. He tries to make his life perfect for him to be happy, and yet he is not happy with what he has created. He tries to get the girl to fall in love with him, and yet she doesn't seem to want to fall in love with him. He can't seem to figure out what he is supposed to do, and he is not a nice guy. He has a different idea of love and he just doesn't know how to express that. But, this is just a small sample of what the movie shows about what Michael is going through. Overall, this movie was good. It had a lot of elements to it, but it lacked some of the things that the book had. This is not to say that the movie is bad. It's not, but I think it is an interesting story that some people may want to check out. This is not a movie for everyone though, and I think if you're into the book, you will want to look at the movie first.

Jonathan Gardner photo
Jonathan Gardner

This is a great movie, and one that I strongly recommend. The story behind this documentary is something I have been wondering about ever since I first saw the title "North Korea: A Country on Fire". The story of how the North Korean people are now in charge of their own country was fascinating. I felt like I was a part of the North Korean people and this movie gave me an insight to that. The movie is an informative movie that shows the real life that goes on in North Korea. The music in this movie is fantastic and very powerful. I felt like I was living that North Korean life, but it was the real life that I am from North Korea and the movie was able to show that. All the actors did a great job and you would never expect that. The cinematography was really good. The story is told with interviews with the people that worked on the documentary and those that were interviewed. I highly recommend this movie and it is worth watching.

Ralph photo

All I can say about this documentary is that it was very informative, that it gave me a lot of information about this movie and its actors. The fact that there were actors involved was also very interesting. I hope that this movie has made more people to understand the importance of changing your view of something and then to finally face facts. I think this is a very important movie to watch because it is a lesson to see how our reality and how we as human beings should think about our world and ourselves.

Juan photo

Although a small group of workers at the Paros coal mine in Louisiana are represented by one union, this group is not represented by the United Mine Workers of America. These miners, who are all union members, were fired for not passing the company's union certification test. The movie shows these workers struggling to keep their jobs and trying to organize themselves. The workers are one of the worst paid in the coal industry, according to the film. They are divided into smaller groups, each having their own separate office. Each group, known as a "union," has a group of managers and a secretary, as well as a budget. In order to pass the company's certification test, they must show that they can support themselves and their families, and that they have the skills to join the union. Despite their wages, they are unable to support their families, and cannot support themselves. They have the option of going to a union hotel and staying in an expensive room. Their wages are about 10 percent of the minimum wage. In one scene, a manager is shown leaving the office without taking his lunch. He didn't take his lunch, and the workers were upset. This happens at the other group of workers who are also not union members, and one man told the manager that he didn't have to take his lunch because he hadn't taken it. It's clear that these workers were not getting paid enough to pay the rent or food for the entire week, so they decided to protest. The workers were one of the main reasons for the economic collapse of the industry. In the United States, every economic downturn and recession has a significant impact on the labor market. In 2006, the unemployment rate was 5.9 percent, but by the year 2000, the unemployment rate was 6.1 percent. The unemployment rate began to rise steadily in the 1990s, and continued to rise throughout the 2000s. The unemployment rate had been falling until the recession of 2001. The unemployment rate continued to increase from 2001 until the Great Recession began in 2007. The last time the unemployment rate was this high was in the late 1970s. The two unions that represent the workers in the film are the Amalgamated Union of Miners and the United Mine Workers of America. They represent the workers in the mine, not the company. The workers in the movie, who are all union members, are trying to organize themselves, but they have been unsuccessful in trying to get recognition from the union, as well as the company. The workers are divided into different groups, each with its own section. The leaders of these groups have a "boss," who they have to work hard for. The bosses control what is and what isn't talked about. For example, one group was told to turn off their radios and to not discuss the union with anyone. They were also told that the boss could go out and start a union. The boss had to pay for the gas to get to the union office, so he couldn't go to the union hall to speak with the union. The workers didn't have a choice. The boss didn't want to get his foot in the union office, because he knew that his union would be shut down and he would lose his job. The union, of course, would lose its contract, because it is considered a non-union. The company made it clear that they would not accept union support, and the union would be forced to find another employer. At one point, the boss showed up at the union hall, and threatened the union leaders that if they didn't join the union, he would sue the union. The company had also threatened to shut down the union's office if they didn't join the union. The company was trying to discourage the workers from joining the union, by threatening to fire them. The workers, who had no choice, didn't want to be fired. The workers were afraid that if they were fired, they would be forced to go to a union hall and face the possibility of losing their jobs. The union, of course, would also be forced to close. The union's contract would be terminated, and they would lose their jobs. The workers are also divided into groups and subgroups. They are assigned to a specific group, but are given subgroups, such as the group of workers that are all women and all union members. The subgroups give each other their names and group them together in meetings. The subgroups tell the workers about what to say and how to act during meetings. They also tell them about the union's contract, which the bosses would refuse to accept, and about the company's attempts to get the workers to accept the union. For example,

Danielle photo

It is not that I don't like the man, but I don't really see why he is so loved. I feel this way because I don't really like him. I don't like that he's controversial and I don't like his involvement with the TV program "The Jeffersons." I find it a little too "self-aggrandizing." To me, he's not very good at all. I really liked the movie "King Arthur," but that's not exactly the same thing as being a great painter or a great actor. The only one of his films I liked was "The Natural," and that's only because it's so "unusual." "The Jeffersons" is just a bit strange. It's not a bad movie, but I just don't think it's great. I guess it's because I don't really like the man, but I don't like what I don't like. It's like I think that all the people who are talking about this film are mostly just being nice to each other. I just don't think that I should be nice to the man because I don't like him.

Heather Powell photo
Heather Powell

It is a pleasure to see De La Warr's colourful, and often hilarious, autobiography. There is a real feeling of pleasure when one of his friends has a wonderful day and it is followed by his wife going to an extravaganza on their property. Or the time when a favourite actor comes to visit and the camera follows him on his journey to a gala dinner. I particularly like the way the camera follows the many big buildings in Paris. The pleasure in knowing how a celebrity looks, talks and acts as he is to be. There are many laugh-out-loud moments, as when they attend a dinner and the chef is a butcher who is very upset at his wife for going out with a man he has never met before. De La Warr is able to capture this humour in a very entertaining way. He does a wonderful job of showing us the events that make a person happy, sad, energetic and full of energy. I think that the question of whether he should keep on working or retire is one that is difficult to answer. He is not against working, but he has got to understand that he is helping to create an industry that may or may not exist in his lifetime. If he has to retire he wants to do so knowing that he has made something. And when I think about the success he has had as a producer, I cannot help but wonder how he will live in the future. I have read that he is a man who does not want to have a wife and children, and that is probably the reason why he is doing the film.

Johnny Rice photo
Johnny Rice

A kind of docudrama about the final months of the French football team. Of course, a lot of the players are too old for the job and it's a difficult task, but their pain is very real. The film shows the players' life and the losses they have suffered. The emotional crisis is hard to watch. Some players seem to be very well aware of the situation and other just don't care. Some of them have come to the end of their days and are now in a place that has nothing in it for them, while others are just trying to keep their head above water. The film shows the death of one player in particular. He is still at it, though. He has to keep going and going, just to keep his job. A lot of the players have other things going on, such as jobs and families, and they often choose not to go on. As they can't take it anymore, the end is near and they don't know what will happen next. But what really is going to happen? The film keeps going, showing some of the players' final days, but it is not clear what will happen next. What really is going to happen? There is some violence, but it is mostly something that the players have no control over. It is a lot of human pain, but the film doesn't ask the players what they want to do with their lives and it doesn't show the players' personal life. It is just about the team. It's a small film, but I really recommend it.

James W. photo
James W.

I had never heard of this film, or heard of any of the music, so I had no preconceived notion of the significance of this film. And I was very pleasantly surprised! This is a nice film, not entirely historically accurate, but it's a fun movie, and that's what it's all about. It's funny, it's touching, and it's kind of fun. There are a couple of missteps here and there, but the overall tone of the film is very positive and optimistic. My only criticism is that the film does a lot of exaggerating, exaggerating the role of the Catholic Church. I thought it was more about the impact of the Church in the lives of the Irish people, but the filmmakers glossed over a lot of important issues that had nothing to do with the Church. It's not the film it could have been, but it's still fun and interesting.

Carol photo

This is a great film, not just a documentary, but it's a very well made one. It has a great soundtrack, and an excellent cinematography. The film is a great look at the lives of the French people, especially the people of Paris, who had to deal with the aftermath of the WWII. As a docudrama, it's great. As a documentary, it's great. The film is very interesting, and the interviews are very interesting. The film is definitely worth seeing. A lot of documentaries like this have the same issues and problems. Many have the same problem of the actors talking about the same things over and over again. It's very common, and the editing is very good. This film is different. The actors are talking about something that happened 40 years ago, and their performances are great. The film doesn't feel the same. You are not seeing the same thing, because you don't know what is happening, or what the actor is talking about. This makes it a little more interesting, and therefore more interesting. The documentary part is good, but sometimes it's a little confusing, and it's hard to follow. There are also some scenes where it's hard to tell what the director is saying. The film has great music. I love the music in this film, it's great. The music is great in this film. It's very well made. This is a very interesting film, it has great performances and great music. The film is very well made. This is a great film. There are some problems, but it's also very interesting, and it's very good. This is a great film, and this is a great documentary.

Brenda Little photo
Brenda Little

I'm not a big fan of radical film-making. I prefer more traditional drama films, that are well-made and mostly based on story and character. I also like to have a good time. And I found this film to be pretty entertaining. I liked the characters, the situation, the film. And I didn't really find it to be boring. I really liked this film. I would recommend it to people who like drama films, who like to be entertained, and who enjoy seeing movies that have a good story, and are well-made.

Howard K. photo
Howard K.

From a New York Times review, the last point is highly relevant. And what a waste of two hours, why not go and see a documentary on that topic instead? I'm all for documentaries, but I don't think a few more hours of my life would have been better spent than watching this film. It was a big disappointment. The issue is presented so superficially and with so little background, it's hard to really understand the discussion. It's not even funny.

Judy Mendoza photo
Judy Mendoza

It's really easy to create a remake of a film that already exists, if not quite so easy to remake an existing film. There's no actual original film here. The producers have obviously used the same original actors and crew. And they've used the same cameraman, the same editing, the same lighting, etc. It's hard to see a big difference in what they did. But it is the very fact that a lot of this film is actually from the 1970's that makes it special. It's a bit hard to describe in a couple of sentences, but it's worth it. Watch it, if you can, because this is a film that doesn't get more attention that it deserves.

Susan W. photo
Susan W.

As I watched the film, I kept asking myself, "What is the purpose of this film? I just want to know why these people do what they do." There are several scenes that I didn't care for and other scenes I did. This is because I felt like the director had no clue about the historical context of the people who he was dealing with. All the interviews were conducted in the 1920's and the interviews were done by "regular" people. The way the director presented the footage, it seemed like he was trying to "crack" a conversation with people who were uninterested in what he was saying. In the end, I was really disappointed in the film because I was expecting more of the kind of historical analysis that I was hoping for. I feel like there could have been more and less focus on the interviews and more on the historical context of the interviews. Another disappointment was that I didn't think that the film would be very informative to the people who watched it. For example, at the beginning of the film, we are shown a map that shows the population of Paris in the 1920's. The map has the city of Paris divided into four quadrants. The left quadrant is filled with rich people. The middle quadrant is filled with poor people. The right quadrant is filled with unemployed people. And the bottom part of the city is filled with peasants. The majority of people in this map lived in the south, east, and north of Paris. I think the purpose of the film was to show the rich and poor of the country and to show that in France the population of the south was the poorest. It was hard for me to get into the people in this film because they were not interesting people. Also, I was disappointed in the fact that the director didn't spend more time showing the people who did the interviews. He used one interview that he had done with a person who worked at the theater in the 1920's to tell the people about their lives. He used this interview to show that his subjects were not interested in historical context and he used the other interview to tell them how he felt about the world today. I would have loved to have seen more of these interviews. Overall, the film was really good because I liked the way the director presented the interviews. It was interesting to see how different people who lived in the same area in France spoke about their lives and how they thought the world was today. It was really interesting and informative to watch and I think that is what I wanted. I felt like the director had no idea how to talk to people who were not interested in what he was saying.

Kyle Sandoval photo
Kyle Sandoval

I love this film, I like the fact that we are told the truth and there is no need to make this into a documentary. This is a man with an infectious sense of humour and the way he speaks his mind has its ups and downs. He tells us that he doesn't want to be famous. He says that he would rather be a sheep herder and take up a hobby that he is not at all interested in. He also talks about his two previous marriages, one with an actress, the other with a model. He explains why he did what he did and tells us why he didn't. I think that the first half hour is quite good, he explains the background to his lifestyle, his children, his love life, his body and his opinion of women. We also learn about his art, how he has never been to the cinema and talks about his hobbies and the film maker, the editor. The second half is a bit weak, it is not as funny and the tone of the film gets a bit boring. Nevertheless it is a good film. I have rated it 7/10.

Tiffany H. photo
Tiffany H.

If you don't like the idea of a man getting naked and talking about his sex life and thoughts of it, then this is not the film for you. I'm not sure if the men who did this film actually liked the idea of it, because it seems to be a mixture of the way that the film portrays a sex life with the actual film itself. The film starts off with the relationship between the three men and their respective women, but as the film progresses the men get more and more "flirtatious". Then you find out that all the women are the same sex as the men, and you wonder why it is in the first place. The sex life is shown in a way that it is just as much a sexual relationship as any other relationship, and not just a man and a woman. This is not a "glorified" sex life, but just a man and a woman. The fact that all the women are the same sex as the men does not seem to hurt the film, because it would have to be pretty similar to the way that the men get involved in it, but I digress. I don't really know if the film is all right, but it is interesting, and it is certainly worth seeing. The one thing that I think is odd is that if it is all right then why do the men keep flirting with the women, if it is all right?

Katherine photo

I haven't read the book but if they had done this without giving out all the story, they would have done a better job. The movie is a good description of the time period. As a picture of France and Paris, it was great. A different take on Paris. I would have given this a 10 but they had to use the book on it. If you go and watch this movie, you might be surprised at what you find. I was.

Jennifer Hopkins photo
Jennifer Hopkins

A talk show host (Claire Ryan) gets her life story, both in a career and personal way, recorded for television. The interviews are only partly of her own making, as her father (Jackie Treehorn) is a former deputy sheriff who was at the time a policeman and, as it happens, married to the editor of the Los Angeles Times. Then there's her mother, the editor's sister, and the housekeeper. The interviewees have mostly got nothing to say. As it turns out, a group of married male lawyers at the firm (the Goodyear men) want to get some cheap publicity, and their first and only meeting was in an elevator. The bad guys are the chief reporter (Federico Luppi), who has been all over the TV talking head circuit for years (he also edits the New York Times) and the editor (Adi Difranco). In the end, the editors get everything they wanted, but one thing they didn't get was a piece of their own back. I didn't expect to find this interesting. As it turned out, it was fascinating, but it wasn't anything that I hadn't seen before in other pieces on the subject. I did like how it got at some of the problems in the relationship between a father and his daughter. My question is: why did the producers want to get the interviewees, and the kids, so much? I think I would have liked the parents to talk, especially when it came to the father's reaction to his daughter getting married. However, I was more interested in the interviews with the Goodyear men, who seem to have been a group of misfits. The father is a physicist who has never seen his daughter on the other side of the law, but after she leaves him and the relationship starts to disintegrate, he starts to go off in a spiral of self-destruction. It's almost a documentary of the Los Angeles newspaper business, except the man's job is to run a TV show. The interviewees seem to be making a statement about the way society has treated them, not necessarily about how society should have treated them. However, they seem to be equally committed to their jobs. The real controversy is between the father and the editors. This is a hard-to-accomplish interview, which gets on a little slow. When it does get going, there's a lot of hard-to-watch reporting and reporting that is sometimes hard to listen to. But, like the mother, they all seem to be happy to be interviewed. I recommend this film.

Gary S. photo
Gary S.

I don't know why this movie has such a low rating. The quality of the film and the amount of information is great. I enjoyed the way they made the movie about the athlete and not about the athlete. I like the fact that they showed the history of the sport and also the history of the athletes. It was also interesting to see how the different events in the athlete's life were covered and the importance of it. The big news is that the film was made by Roger Ebert. I didn't know that and I'm glad to know that. He made a very good film about an important topic and he is very respected in the film industry. There was also a great picture of the film and the characters were also interesting. I really liked it. I would recommend it to people that don't know much about sports or that have never seen any sports related films before.

Jose G. photo
Jose G.

I was expecting to see a bunch of red carpet footage from old, mediocre movies but what I saw was a very nice, accessible introduction to films by famous directors, from the 1960s and 70s. I liked everything about this film except that it ended too quickly, which is a bit disappointing for a documentary of this nature. I felt the first hour was interesting enough but the film ended too quickly. The director has done an excellent job of showing the journey of these famous directors from their humble beginnings up through their legendary careers. It's a shame that they didn't make more films. I'd definitely recommend this film for fans of the great filmmakers who have come before. It's a must see for any filmmaker who has an interest in history. 7/10

Judith Davis photo
Judith Davis

I haven't seen a documentary about the 1960's more than once. For this reason, I thought this movie would be good. I was pleasantly surprised. It is fascinating to see all the emotions of the 1960's, and the people involved in the planning of the event. It's fascinating to see how two different cultures came together to create something as big and as important as the American Winter Olympic Games. It's also interesting to see how different cultures came to care about a project that in other cultures would have been considered a money pit. Most importantly, it is fascinating to see how the event came to be. What do you do when you have been planning the event for many years? And what do you do when you know you're going to lose money? How do you turn a great idea into a great event? The film really gives you a good insight into that. The question is, are we going to change how we plan our events? We need to do this for many other events, especially those in the United States, that we have lost money on. This film shows us that this was a wonderful opportunity for the United States to have a Olympics in front of an international audience, and it was a huge success. So, why did this happen? For one thing, the major city governments (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago) wanted a huge event for their cities. They wanted to make money off of it. And there are many other reasons for the events to happen. There was the political element. There was the insurance industry, the sponsors of the event, the governments, and many more. This is a great film for people to see that one of the world's great cities decided to do something about an international event. It shows you the opportunity that many of the people involved in the planning of the event had. It also shows you the great sense of humor that some of the people involved had, and the fun they had. It also shows you that the reaction from many people in the government was completely different than what you would have expected. The overall result of this was a great event. You see how a great idea can come to be. And that's what the film does.

Kevin photo

I'm surprised that the filmmakers didn't include any interviews from people that had any actual knowledge of the actual "concourse." For example, not one person that actually lived in the studio building could be interviewed. It seems like they went through the "research" to find people who knew what the hell was going on, but failed to get anyone to speak up. This makes the film look like it's edited for no reason. The film is a little slow in the beginning, but quickly picks up speed, especially when they talk about the building. They say the highest point in the building was on its 102nd floor. When they visit the highest point, there is no sign of it, just a "1" sign. The film starts to get interesting when they talk about the building's design and how the stories are "built" around the "concourse" itself. They do a good job of showing what the building looked like in the early 80's. Unfortunately, they don't talk about the building's design, nor how it changed over the years. I think the film would have been better if they did. I do like the film, and am glad they did the research. But they missed a great opportunity to bring people inside the building, like they did with the people who lived there during the documentary.

Beverly H. photo
Beverly H.

I just saw this film at the Montreal International Film Festival, and I was really impressed. This film is a portrait of a journey from Thailand to Montreal, and all the consequences. First of all, I am totally shocked by the fact that this film was made in the 80's. I am not sure how anyone could have let this go unnoticed for so long. I think it was because the story was mostly seen as being boring. This is not the case at all. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I think that the story is intriguing and the film is extremely well made. This film is a fascinating film to watch, and one of the most underrated films in the festival. My vote is seven. Title (Brazil): "Quando las verdadeiros: o detenidade" ("When the World Ends: The Death of the Dream")