10 years Reflection: do you think I got scammed?

It’s been 10 years now, I mean this very month, that Unfaithful has been released so I thought it is about time to reflect and tell some of the things I learned. I shared every step of the making of this movie on this blog and I have some few things left to share with you. I’ll try to keep it short, for your sake…

Reflection on the making
Let’s proceed by themes or topics… First, say, my approach. The way I jumped into this experience. So, I guess my idea is still that I don’t want to make movies where I would boss people around and impose “My vision” to a crew and to the viewers. Because I strongly believe in democracy and also because… how can I put it… This idea of expecting your crew, your actors to perform, instead of welcoming them for who they are, this very hierarchical way of managing the work space or this super authoritative relationship with the viewer, all those things come from the framing of mind of straight white rich dudes. Let’s be honest about that. I don’t think it’s possible to criticize and challenge a system that makes all of us invisible by using those very methods that are made to comfort and maintain the system…

Whatever… No-one had never shown a spark of interest for that idea so… But anyway, to sum it up, my approach is still the same: I gather the conditions for something to happen and have no control over what is happening. And it makes me feel real good.

About the cast
So now, let’s talk about the actor. I guess I wouldn’t pick him if I knew what I’ve come to learn and here’s why. I think he looks good in the movie. He didn’t understand my approach. That’s my bad, I didn’t explain it to him well enough obviously… For example, in the script, I wrote the topics of conversations we would have and we were supposed to improvise… But he came well prepared, i.e. he wrote what he wanted to say and rehearsed those lines. It didn’t go well, though it was kinda cute. So I had to figure out new topics, shake things up, and after, say 3 days, maybe more, we were able to land on our feet well. That’s not why I wouldn’t pick him or indirectly…

The thing is he was not really honest with me in order to land the gig, about his experience, his expectations… I don’t mind that, you do what you have to do. But I pictured him as this underground actor up for some experimental new ways of making movies. After 2 days of shooting, we were small talking when he said he didn’t like the avant-garde movies he starred in and he had pretty conservative tastes. Which is fine, of course, but that’s when I knew he wouldn’t be happy with this movie and he wouldn’t even see the point at all. And that is kinda sad because you want your actors to be satisfied with the outcome.

But at the end, he told me that some filmmakers saw the movie, thought he was good and offered him to audition for other projects.  So I guess it turned out good for him.

The release of the movie
So now, let’s talk about the release of the movie. Pretty early on, a seller, a dealer, I’m not sure how it’s called, contacted me and offered me to find some distributors. It kinda works like an agent, finding you some deals and taking his cut. He, indeed, found some distributors. It made sense to deal with this seller guy, since the very same companies that didn’t message me back when I contacted them, bought the film thanks to him. One of the first things a distributor told me when I met him: “You should have sent us a screener”, well actually, I did… See, the system is rigged for the white straight rich dudes, even for gay movies. And the film was sold throughout Europe, North America and Asia.

Most of the time, I had no contact at all with those distribution companies. Which I guess is unfortunate to say the least. I had a really good relationship with the US company. It’s always nice for a hard worker to find people as diligent. I had a, well I guess you could say terrible, or maybe surreal?, experience with the French company.  To make it short they came with a deal with this seller guy to completely ruin the movie. In the 21st century, 50 years after the so-called “sexual liberation”, I kid you not, they thought it was a good idea to blur huge parts of the film. To this day, it makes me laugh how ludicrous or dumb or outrageous it is. I thought, I really thought the viewers would throw stuff at them out of anger and call them out. It turned out, no-one did. NO-ONE. To my knowledge anyway. So while I’m very sorry for this poor version of the film that people in some countries had to buy, I’m also frustrated that no-one spoke up and took my side.

So this seller guy, Loic Magneron and his company Wide Management, yes I name and shame, made thousands of dollars out of this movie and to this day, 10 years after we closed the deal, I still have not received a cent, NOT ONE CENT, at all. I’m not saying he’s a crook, I don’t know what happened… I still haven’t figured it out… I’m just saying for the people out there considering working with him, maybe think twice, you might want that money to make other movies at some point. The idea of lawyering up is quite unpleasant. I wish I could live in a world where we all try to be our nicest selves, but I guess I will have to sue those people unfortunately. If you’re a lawyer DM me :-)

But there is a silver lining. Yes I’m an optimistic person. And that is I do own all the rights of my movie back now. No-one to mess with it, ruin it, pocket the money or anything for that matter. It is available in the version I envisioned and I’m very happy about that. And you can watch the film here.


a thought-provoking movie!

"There’s a sense of this being a bit of a Russian Dolls film, attempting to explore the fakeness of trying to depict reality, and whether you can reveal the truth that’s behind reality by putting it on film. Pérès never seems to come any conclusions about this..." Tim Isaac (BGPS) [read the review]



a masterpiece of cinema

"Claude Pérès made a masterpiece of cinema."


get the dvd!



Claude Pérès' Interview: Bonus

Part 2 of Claude Pérès' Interview: "cinema and capitalism":

"A dissident filmmaker would withdraw his work from the rules of the market, for instance by refusing to provide the viewers what they expect as consumers. And a dissident filmmaker might want to think about more democratic conditions of production of movies and more democratic structure of movies themselves. But the viewers have work to do too. They need to go against their habit of expecting to get what they pay for. They need to accept to be disturbed by watching movies that doesn’t look like anything."

View more on Claude Pérès website...

get the dvd!



"Sexual liberation is a trap"

Here an interview of Claude Pérès about Sexual liberation and Pornography:

Pornography is considered to improve the freedom of speech and sexual liberation, isn’t it?

Seriously? I’m sorry I have to strongly disagree on those two points. Speech is not something made to free anything, but something carrying its own rules and since we speak that speech, we use those rules, in our everyday life, we don’t even pay attention to them.

And about sexual liberation, well what was actually liberated at the end of the day? To my opinion, and I happened to get reinforced in my idea after making that movie, the whole sexual liberation has been framed up by porn industry. The idea we have of sexuality those days is pretty far from this thing beyond rules people had in mind in the 60s. There are rules to organize sexuality and those rules are dictated at some point by this porn industry.

What kind of rules is sexuality organized with?

You have to keep in mind that sexuality could turn out to be pretty terrible for any society. It’s a very intense exchange between people that could end in chaos. Obviously this idea of chaos is abstract. Moreover, it’s a waste of time. There is nothing coming out of it that could be useful for the public interest. That’s why it remained taboo, that is: impossible to deal with by any society for so long. Sexuality was not liberated at some point like that, because our society became nice and respectful. It was liberated because it was possible to make something useful out of it.

How useful sexuality can be for the public interest?

Well, a “very intense exchange”, obviously that rings a bell, this is how we picture ourselves any market. I think plenty of tastes and manners were tolerated these past decades because they meet the rules of our times, the rules of market and capitalism. I think it is really interesting because, for the first time, a society was able to handle sexuality; its rules were suitable to do so.

Who cares why sexuality was liberated as long as it is?

Because sexuality was readjusted to suit to the rules of our society… The picture of sexuality we are given is not sexuality like this image of a pipe by Magritte is not a pipe, but an image. It is a sad sexuality condemned to be unsatisfied to bring the consumer to buy over again. It is funny because this sad picture of sexuality proves all bigots right. Linda Williams pointed out in Hard Core: “the advantage (to capital) of this vicarious purchased image-satisfaction is that the very insubstantiality of the use value purchased feeds back into the structure of needs, renewing the consumer’s willingness to pay for that which will never be owned.”

But this alienating operation goes further. When you think about this relation between Knowledge and Power described by Foucault, I assume you can say that pornography is to be seen in a paranoiac articulation. Hippies used to say “The more I make love, the more I make revolution” because they went against an order, but an other order made a use out of sexuality, an order meant to know everything about everybody.

Porn industry = bigots?

Obviously yes. It’s a trap because they overwhelm the room. On one hand you can’t say there is no such thing as sexual liberation because images of sexuality are everywhere around. You wouldn’t be credible. On the other hand, you still really often hear sexuality being considered as something shameful, even by those who are porn addicts. For instance, censorship still blur nudity or intercourse and that doesn't seem to bother anybody. There is something like a contradiction here.

My idea is that porn industry and bigots work together. They picture the same idea of sexuality, which is far cry from what we experience in our lives. When you look into it, what was actually liberated was the bigots’ idea of sexuality, not sexuality itself. For the record, the liberation of sexuality would have made way more noise.

So, the problem is once again capitalism?

Not really. There’s no use to blame everything on capitalism. People’s wanting to make money out of everything, good for them. I don’t care. What is interesting to point out is how the market is organized. It follows the rules of the speech we talked before. The mechanisms of the speech consist in identifying and differentiating things, for instance to name it. And the idea of the market is to cover everything, including every single niche. So you would think, you will eventually fit in with a niche and everything is for the best in this best of possible worlds. But this identifying/ differentiating operation is a trap, since your very desire doesn’t match with any of those niches. There’s always an approximation or even a renunciation. Even if you juxtapose plenty of niches, you never reach the extent of your whole desire, which can’t definitely be reduced. It’s the same with politics, you never really fit in with a party, even though you have plenty of options.

What kind of breathing space do we have?

I think we have to keep in mind and to keep saying that this picture of sexuality, that conditions our perception at some point, is bigot and capitalist, which is surprisingly not a contradiction and also paranoiac.

We need to keep our sexualities away from this picture and keep inventing our own vocabulary, our own language, which can’t be reduced to a linguistic operation of market and which is not meant to be seen in a paranoiac knowledge/power articulation. We need to refuse to let our sexuality reduced to linguistic images and entertaining capitalist products.

Moreover, I think we need to backfire and turn the question against bigots and capitalists. I think a society that pretends to seek the happiness – or whatever you call such a thing meant not to be useful at all for any society –, of its members can’t phrase what is the problem about sexuality without being demystified.

get the dvd!



"a cult film"

"True vision of cinema, Unfaithful has many qualities to become a cult film"

["Véritable proposition de cinéma, Infidèles a plus d’un atout pour devenir un film culte" tadahblog]

get the dvd!



Unfaithful: "a daring film"

"Director Claude Pérès explores the essence of erotica with this daring film"

[Nancy Ford]

get the dvd!



New trailer!

get the dvd!



Unfaithful on FB

To talk, comment, follow... here is the fb page of Unfaithful:



Ouch! :-))

"Pérès – a writer/director I am unfamiliar with, and based on this film, hope to remain so..."

[Gary M. Kramer]

get the dvd



good news


  • still well ranked among the lgbt best sellers on amazon

  • still in the top of lgbt best sellers and drama best sellers in france

get the dvd!



Unfaithful censored on youtube ;-)

I guess just a kiss between two dressed men is still very offensive for some people... LMAO

For the record, here is the video of this "inappropriate content":

(BTW Merry winter solstice and Merry christmas!)


note to self #16

< style = "color: # 000000 ;">question the power - the abuse of power - of directors and producers< /h2>



good news

Infidèles (Unfaithful) is ranked in the LGBT top bestsellers in France.

get the dvd!



Unfaithful in France

"an obsessing movie..."



good news

Unfaithful is in the top 100 lgbt movies bestsellers on amazon since 12 weeks.

get the dvd!



Unfaithful in Paris: "this is not an entertainment!"

Here is the introduction of Claude Pérès for the screening of Unfaithful in Paris:


- I introduce Claude Pérès. He's gonna explain his intention...

- Good evening.

I was interested in trying to look into human relationships on a set... a director asking an actor to do something... all those power struggles...

So I thought we had to do something for real to push it to the extreme and make all the tiny details obvious.

We could have killed each other, but I obviously rejected that idea... I thought you would laugh... Thank you.

At that point came the issue of sex. Leaving this question to moralistic people or pornographers... This is something which bugs me. We all should jump into it.

With this idea of searching for tiny details, talking about sex might allow something to happen.

This is not an entertainment. That means I don't try to seduce you or to convince you. I give you enough room and time to question what you are watching, even if you dislike it.

Enjoy the screening.


get the dvd!