In May 1952, a group of young cinephiles in Lyon launched Positif, with Bernard Chardère as its first editor. From the start it positioned itself as an independent, volunteer-driven journal shaped by postwar cinephilia (serious, organized film-loving culture). This founding created a durable institutional platform for French—and increasingly European—debates about cinema and criticism.
By the early 1950s, Positif was already being read alongside Cahiers du cinéma (first issue April 1951), but often in opposition. The two journals helped form “two schools” of French cinephilia, disagreeing on what mattered most in film and how criticism should be written. This rivalry shaped how New Wave directors would be evaluated and argued over in print.
By the mid-1950s, the journal’s operations moved from Lyon to Paris, placing it closer to France’s main film industry and cultural institutions. This change helped Positif cover more premieres, filmmakers, and debates as they happened. The move also intensified its direct competition with Paris-based Cahiers du cinéma.
From 1959, Éric Losfeld edited Positif, a period when French cinema was rapidly changing and new directors were gaining attention. Editorial leadership mattered because it affected which filmmakers were championed, criticized, or debated—and how strongly. This was the moment when European journals increasingly became arenas where “New Wave” reputations were built or challenged.
In 1959, Alain Resnais’s Hiroshima mon amour helped broaden what “New Wave” could mean beyond youthful Paris stories and comedy-drama. Its innovative structure—moving between present scenes and memory—became a major reference point in criticism. European journals used films like this to argue about modern storytelling, editing, and how cinema could address history and trauma.
On May 4, 1959, François Truffaut’s Les Quatre Cents Coups screened at the Cannes Film Festival and became a defining public breakthrough for the emerging French New Wave. Festival attention made the movement harder to ignore outside Paris and outside France. Journals like Positif now had to respond to a wave of first features that critics were labeling a new direction in cinema.
During the late 1950s, Positif often positioned itself against Cahiers du cinéma and is frequently described as not supporting the Nouvelle Vague as a group project. That skepticism mattered because it created a second major critical lens: New Wave films were not only celebrated but also tested against other values (themes, politics, scripts, and genres). The result was a more contested European picture of New Wave directors than a single “house style” of praise.
In 1960, Jean-Luc Godard’s À bout de souffle (Breathless) became a major flashpoint for debates about modern style, including jump cuts and a freer approach to storytelling. European film journals treated it as evidence that cinema’s “language” could change quickly and visibly. For Positif and its peers, New Wave coverage now required explaining new techniques to readers while also judging their artistic and cultural meaning.
In the 1960s, Positif developed into a more wide-ranging current-affairs and information-heavy film magazine, while remaining independent and volunteer-driven. This shift supported broader European coverage: more films, more national cinemas, and more directors could be tracked over time. It also helped standardize the idea that a serious film journal could combine criticism with documentation and interviews.
After writing an article on Orson Welles in 1963, Michel Ciment joined Positif’s editorial committee. His arrival signaled continuity in the journal’s long-term institutional life: critics could become organizers and agenda-setters inside the publication. Over time, this helped make Positif known for sustained critical work and for interviews as a major genre of film journalism.
In 1966, Michel Ciment was promoted to editor in chief at Positif, giving the journal a more stable leadership as the 1960s closed. This mattered for New Wave coverage because it helped shift discussion from the “shock of the new” to longer-term evaluation—what these directors had changed, and what came after. By 1970, European journal coverage increasingly treated the New Wave as a historical turning point rather than a fresh insurgency.
In May 1968, the Cannes Film Festival was halted as political crisis and mass protests shook France. Leading filmmakers publicly supported the shutdown, linking cinema culture to wider debates about power, labor, and institutions. For European film journals, this was a turning point: New Wave directors and critics were now discussed not only for style, but for their roles in public political life.
By 1970, Positif’s long-running dialogue and rivalry with Cahiers du cinéma had helped set a durable framework for how European critics wrote about New Wave directors: as artists to be debated, not simply celebrated. The period left behind key habits of criticism—close attention to form, strong editorial positions, and the use of journals as institutions that shape reputations. In this sense, 1952–1970 closes as a story of New Wave cinema becoming canonized through ongoing European journal coverage and argument.
Positif and European film-journal coverage of New Wave directors, 1952–1970