Reviews 231 toward the target features and provides a wide selection of relevant practice activities. In addition to treating key phonetic elements that are common to all varieties of French (e.g., syllable stress, enchaînement), the authors have also opted to address a number of socio-phonetic variation phenomena (e.g., optional schwa deletion) raising students’ awareness to the fact that French is a highly diverse language which varies according to geographical, social, situational, and medial contexts of use. In addition, the content of each chapter is embedded in a cultural topic which will likely appeal to learners. However, from a sociolinguistic perspective, there are a few terminological issues with this textbook. The authors present français standard, français international, and français de référence as equals. Yet, work by Guérin informed by Koch and Oesterreicher clearly illustrates that standard French is only a situated realization of a national variety of French, one that is typically found in formal monological oral or written communicative situations. It is therefore inaccurate and misleading to refer to Swiss or Belgian French as instances of regional non-standard varieties. Moreover, to my knowledge, there is no consensual description of what constitutes français international. Lyche proposes a thorough phonological description of français de référence, which she based on a large amount of oral data collected for the ongoing research project Phonologie du français comtemporain (PFC). The authors’ operationalization of français standard thus appears to rest on their shared agreement of what phonetic features best describe that variety. In spite of this shortcoming, Sons et Sens is an invaluable pedagogical resource for French L2 classrooms. It will enrich students’ perspectives on the diversity and richness of modern French language and cultures. Université Laval Suzie Beaulieu Film edited by Michèle Bissière 36e Festival International de Films de Femmes, Créteil, 14–23 mars 2014. . Some of the most rewarding sides to the FIFF remain the pedagogical interactions with junior high and high school students.Once again,the high school group published the daily newsletter, What’s up, posted online during the festival. Their remarks and research were particularly valuable this year. Among the most pertinent and significant sections was the Colloque femmes et cinéma/Women in Films. It included“Statistiques et valorisation des femmes travaillant dans le secteur de l’audiovisuel”;“Mise en réseau, l’histoire et les meilleures pratiques”; “Introduction à l’analyse politique et au contenu/Genre et le cinéma des femmes.” This last presentation included Maria de Medeiros (featured in the Portraits section), Dominique Gros (a member of the documentary jury) and Kate Millett, continuing to inspire so many years after her seminal book, Sexual Politics. Her presence, her film (Three Lives, that follows three American women in the 1970s), and her remarks bridged the gap between American feminists in the 1960s and 1970s and modern French women. It was remarkable to watch twenty- and thirty-year-olds discover the work of their American predecessor/s and interact with it/them. Cinéast(e)s,the documentary by Julie Gayet and Mathieu Busson on French women filmmakers represented an impressive number of women interviewed (20), spanning generations, from the pioneers (such as Agnès Varda, who rightfully reminds us of the earliest pioneer, Alice Guy) to recent first time filmmakers. Those interviewed were: Varda,Balasko,Marshall,Bruni Tedeschi,Zlotowski,Donzelli,Sciamma,Delpy,HansenLove ,Achache,Azuelos, Doillon, Ferran, Garcia, Letourneur, Mazuy, Moreau, Nakache, Roüan. Gayet sets up the interviews with questions such as: Does the public listen to men more than to women? Can we speak of a strictly feminine cinema? Is it more difficult for a woman than for a man to find funding for a film? Are gender quotas necessary for film? And she does remind us that France is the country with the highest percentage of women filmmakers, although that number still remains around 20%. What she does not explore is why the percentage is higher. For example, she could have contemplated the possible impact of the feminization of the teaching staff at FEMIS; the inclusion of more women in the CNC that attributes l’avance...
Read full abstract