Pour la suite du monde: How a ‘We’ Is Filmed into Existence

The riverside discussion at 00:10:00 does not display a ready-made technique. The hunt has been suspended for years; posts, tides, and divisions of labour remain dispersed across elders’ bodily memory and speech. At 00:15:00 the rule of working at low tide is spoken again, reconnecting natural rhythm to human action. By 00:20:00 the addressee expands from a few knowledgeable men to the island, and recollection becomes a public proposition that can receive a response.[8][11]

Deleuze calls this relation a word in act. Its force lies not in supplying background information but in changing the positions of speaker and addressee: those who remember become transmitters, those who hear become potential participants, and the filmmakers enter the event as intercessors rather than detached observers. Froger’s account of community adds that cinema does not simply represent an existing bond; the bond is tested and produced through filming, response, and shared obligation.[1][6][4]

The meeting at 00:25:00 presses the revival into unit prices, financing, and equipment. At 00:35:00 an elder uses gesture, exaggeration, and practical language to shape the role of the hunter. Between 00:43:35 and 00:44:13 islanders stand knee-deep in the tide adjusting post spacing. Together the scenes show fabulation not as an escape from reality but as the conversion of an unrealized project into relations that can be costed, taught, and coordinated.[1][11]

Cinema 2 calls the film’s storytelling speech-act a generator of action. Action has not vanished; rather, its causal chain must first be rebuilt by collective enunciation. Bogue describes Perrault and the islanders as reciprocal intercessors: Perrault needs their local knowledge and voices, while filming helps them organize memory into a present undertaking. Construction is therefore repetition with difference. An older practice returns but becomes something new within an environment composed of camera, finance, and public institutions.[1][4][8]

At 00:30:00 participants attribute the post-weir technique to Indigenous inhabitants before the settlers; at 01:10:00 the workshop exchange continues by asking how Indigenous people obtained the idea. Kinik records another account in the film linking the structure to settlers from Brittany and Normandy. Moussette, p. 93, places island oral tradition beside Casgrain’s objection and finds no surviving document that establishes the structure’s origin. The film establishes a conflict of attribution; it does not adjudicate the inventor.[11][7][9][10]

Freire situates Perrault within an anthropology of memory: gesture and speech are staged by the filming situation without making the participants unreal. Beaulieu adds that Perrault’s légender belongs to a specific Québécois politics and poetics that cannot be exhausted by an imported philosophical category. The film works in this tension: local speech produces community while retaining the factual boundary that speech alone cannot establish historical truth.[7][5][9]

At 01:30:00 islanders gather around the captured beluga as it is prepared for transport; collective labour has produced a visible result. At 01:40:00, the aquarium request ‘you speak for us’ explicitly places one voice in the position of group representative. The first establishes a shared consequence; the second is the directly identifiable speech-act. Collective enunciation does not require everyone to speak at once; authorization, circulation, and consequence must remain traceable in the image.[1][11]

Deleuze’s invention of a people takes concrete form here. Kinship, local knowledge, collective labour, a national film institution, and the aquarium meet, while no single subject owns the event. Froger’s community-under-trial is equally visible: the collective gains visibility through external relations and continues to face representation, institutional dependence, and internal difference. The people to come is thus an unfinished temporal structure—already appearing in action and speech, never frozen as a final identity.[1][6][5]