MIFC

From the Operating Room of Film Negatives to a Marketplace for the Future of Classic Cinema

A Report on the 14th International Classic Film Market at Festival Lumière 2026

Narges Samadi | Film Critic & Festival Journalist

Lyon, France | October 2026

Film markets at international festivals usually look ahead. Screenplays seek producers, projects are presented to find financing, production companies look for partners, and distributors negotiate the acquisition and sale of screening rights. From pre-production and production to post-production and distribution, everyone works to bring a film to the screen.

But the International Classic Film Market in Lyon, known as MIFC, introduced me to an entirely different world. Here, many of the films had been made long ago. Some were several decades old, while others were approaching a century since their first screenings. Yet there were still people planning their future.

After many years of practicing medicine, I saw this market as a beating heart, one whose youth had long passed and which was now in the care of a team of specialists. A heart whose damaged valves might have been repaired or replaced, which might require bypass surgery to restore blood flow, and whose vessels might have been examined repeatedly through medical imaging and detailed investigations.

In such circumstances, the physician’s goal is not to restore the patient’s youth. It is to preserve life and make its continuation possible.

I felt something similar at Lyon’s Classic Film Market. The reels of negatives seemed like blood vessels through which life had flowed for many years, repeatedly examined under the careful eyes of specialists. Films moved forward and backward, frame by frame, so specialists could identify and repair scratches, damage, colour deterioration, and defects in image and sound wherever possible.

During my days at MIFC, I sometimes felt that, rather than observing a film market, I was witnessing the gradual return to life of films we had loved for years.

And what a strange feeling it was to contemplate their future with greater peace of mind: restored versions that could return to cinema screens and, with proper care and preservation, survive for years to come.

Yet the story did not end with saving the negatives. Behind this process lay a series of artistic, historical, economic, and even ethical decisions whose different dimensions I gradually came to understand during my time at Lyon’s Classic Film Market.

Restoring Cinema: Who Decides Which Films Will Survive?

The 14th edition of the International Classic Film Market took place from October 13 to 16, 2026, as part of Festival Lumière. It brought together restoration specialists, film catalogue owners, archivists, distributors, cinematheque directors, and technology professionals.

At first glance, film restoration might seem to mean little more than repairing damaged negatives. But before any restoration project begins, a more fundamental decision must be made: which film should be selected?

Film archives worldwide contain countless works that require digitization, preservation, or restoration. Yet financial resources, specialized equipment, and trained personnel cannot address them all at once.

The decision to restore a film may depend on several factors, including its historical and artistic significance, the condition of the original materials, ownership of rights, restoration costs, and the possibility of redistributing the work.

This is where restoration moves beyond a purely technical activity and becomes a cultural decision.

Should priority be given to a film by a well-known director, one with greater commercial potential and a better chance of recovering the investment? Or should it go to a forgotten work that may attract only a limited audience but preserves an important part of a country’s cinematic history?

This question reminded me of situations in medicine where resources are limited, and treatment priorities require professional judgment and responsibility. Of course, the value of a human life cannot be compared with that of a work of art. But in both fields, specialized decisions can have consequences extending far beyond a technical intervention.

In cinema, these choices may determine which images reach future generations and which works gradually disappear from public memory.

Is Classic Cinema Too Old?

Opening Discussion of MIFC — October 13, 2026

The market's first professional discussion explored the relationship between cinema’s heritage and its future from another perspective.

The panel, titled Is Classic Cinema Too Old? (Le cinéma classique est-il trop vieux ?), took place on October 13, from 10:00 to 11:15 a.m. Moderated by French journalist Perrine Quennesson, it brought together four cinema professionals:

Leo van Hee, senior programmer at Eye Filmmuseum in Amsterdam; Patrycja Włodek, an academic researcher, artistic director of the Timeless Film Festival Warsaw, and adviser to Polish distributor Gutek Film; Sophie-Catherine Gallet, film critic, journalist, writer, and director; and Saïd Ben Saïd, film producer and head of SBS Productions.

The central question was what makes a film a classic. Is it its age, artistic value, narrative style, historical significance, or the way audiences perceive it?

This question mattered especially at a market dedicated to preserving older films and returning them to circulation. Restoration may let a film survive, but audiences give that survival cultural meaning.

Time and the Changing Definition of Classic Cinema

During the discussion, Leo van Hee drew on decades of film programming experience to show how difficult it is to draw a clear chronological boundary for classic cinema.

He began his professional career in the mid-1980s, when films from the 1940s and 1950s were already considered part of cinema’s past. Yet today, several decades later, many films from the 1960s and 1970s still seem alive and remarkably close to the contemporary world.

This shifting perspective reveals that the notion of age in cinema is far from fixed.

Does a film become a classic after ten years? After twenty? Or only when its place in cinema history has been firmly established?

The discussion also considered style, presentation, and even marketing. A film's status as a classic does not depend solely on when it was produced. How it is presented, distributed, and represented in popular culture can also shape audience perceptions.

The Rolling Stones were mentioned as an example: a band whose concerts sometimes bring together three generations of the same family—grandparents, parents, and grandchildren.

In cinema, too, a film made decades ago may offer a fresh, meaningful experience to a young person who wasn't even born when it was produced.

From this perspective, nostalgia is not a prerequisite for connecting with cinema’s past. A work can belong to its own historical moment while still resonating with the concerns and emotions of other generations.

The Internet: Greater Access, Deeper Understanding?

Another central theme of the discussion was the changing relationship between audiences and cinema history in the age of the internet.

In the past, many older films were difficult to access. Those who wanted to see works outside regular theatrical circulation relied on cinematheque programmes, special screenings, archives, or video editions.

Today, streaming platforms, YouTube, short excerpts, and tribute videos make many films from the 1920s and 1930s available alongside contemporary works.

To some extent, this has blurred the boundaries between periods of film history in viewers' everyday experience.

A silent film made a century ago may now be watched with just a few clicks, alongside the latest cinematic releases.

Yet this widespread access raised another question for me: does making historical films easier to watch necessarily lead to a deeper understanding of cinema?

Watching a fA few minutes of a film online may be the beginning of a discovery. Still, it differs from watching the entire work, understanding the historical circumstances of its production, analyzing its cinematic language, and recognizing its place in the evolution of film as an art form.

For this reason, cinematheques, critics, researchers, and specialized film festivals do more than provide access to screenings. These institutions can help audiences connect the images they watch to the artistic and social histories behind them.

The Younger Generation and the Future of Cinema’s Heritage

Patrycja Włodek, film scholar and artistic director of the Timeless Film Festival Warsaw, approached the subject from the perspective of how younger generations engage with films from the past.

This part of the discussion challenged the assumption that audiences for classic cinema are necessarily separate from those who watch contemporary films.

Younger viewers may have no personal memories of the period in which a film was produced, but that does not prevent them from connecting with its world.

Sometimes, a film made several decades ago can reflect contemporary concerns through its subject matter, its portrayal of human relationships, or its perspective on society.

The essential question, therefore, is not simply how old a film is, but how audiences encounter it.

For example, if an older film is presented merely as an object of the past, viewers may see it as a historical curiosity, distant from their own lives. Yet the same film, presented in an appropriate context and accompanied by discussion of its themes and cinematic language, can become a living experience.

This issue matters to the International Classic Film Market and extends well beyond theoretical debate.

Restoring and re-releasing films can contribute to the continuity of cinema’s heritage only when preserved works reach new audiences.

Otherwise, films may be saved technically while gradually losing their meaningful presence in society’s cultural memory.

Cinema Behind Prison Walls: Sophie-Catherine Gallet’s Experience

One moment that held particular personal significance for me was Sophie-Catherine Gallet’s reference to her experience working with cinema in a prison environment.

Amid discussions about younger generations, access to classic films, and expanding audiences, prisons introduced an entirely different perspective on cultural accessibility.

The question was no longer simply how to encourage young people to watch older films. It became a question of how cinema could reach environments where individuals lack the freedom to participate in society's cultural life fully.

Gallet’s remarks about her work with cinema in prisons reminded me of the years I spent practicing medicine at Evin Prison in Tehran.

At that time, my responsibility was to attend to patients' physical health. Now, many years later, having embarked on a new professional path as a film critic, I found myself imagining the possibility of returning to that same environment—not as a physician, but to screen films and engage in conversations about cinema.

This personal experience led me to think about access to cinematic heritage beyond movie theatres, digital platforms, and distribution markets.

If classic cinema is to be regarded as part of humanity’s shared cultural heritage, we must also consider how to make it accessible to people who, for various reasons, remain excluded from ordinary cultural activities.

From this perspective, bringing cinema into prisons can join a broader conversation about education, culture, and art's role in human life.

Preserving Films Is Not Enough: We Must Also Preserve the Possibility of Watching Them

Despite the different perspectives expressed by the participants, the opening discussion highlighted an issue closely connected to the philosophy of film restoration.

Preserving a film's physical or digital copy is only one part of the responsibility of safeguarding cinematic heritage.

The other is creating conditions in which films continue to be seen, discussed, and discovered, allowing new generations to establish their own relationship with cinema history.

In fact, the question initially raised about the criteria for selecting films for restoration remains: once we decide which works to preserve, how can we ensure they return to cultural life?

Perhaps the real issue is not whether classic cinema has become too old, but whether we are still finding appropriate ways to introduce it to new audiences.

Restoration can save a film’s image and sound from deterioration, but its cultural survival requires more than technology: education, research, criticism, public screenings, and dialogue.

This is where the International Classic Film Market moves beyond a professional gathering devoted to acquiring, selling, and restoring films. It becomes a place to reflect on the future of cinema’s memory.

The Operating Room of Cinema: When Every Frame Matters

One aspect of the market I found particularly interesting was discovering companies specializing in archive management, digitization, and the preservation of audiovisual heritage.

During a presentation by Cité de mémoire, one expression caught my attention: transforming documentary heritage into strategic digital assets.

At first glance, this phrase belongs to the language of management and technology. Yet it raises a fundamental question: how can information recorded on negatives, audio tapes, film reels, and photographs be preserved in a form that remains identifiable, retrievable, and usable in the future?

The first step is to understand exactly what is available. Cataloguing, identifying existing materials, recording archival information, and examining the physical condition of films are essential preliminary stages before making decisions about preservation and restoration.

To me, this stage resembled taking a medical history and reviewing a patient’s records. Before any intervention, you must understand the patient’s background, identify changes over time, and determine the underlying problem.

Only then can digitization and restoration begin. Procedures vary with each film's condition and include high-resolution scanning, correcting image instability, repairing scratches and other recoverable damage, examining colour, and restoring sound.

But a fundamental distinction that separates restoration from beautification.

The aim is not to erase every visible trace of time. The natural grain of the negative, the characteristics of the lighting, the texture of the image, and the technical limitations of the production period are all part of a film’s identity.

If restorers eliminate these characteristics to improve image quality, the result may be a sharper picture, but not necessarily the same work the filmmaker created.

Just as not every visible physical change in medicine is a sign of disease, not every unfamiliar characteristic of a cinematic image is a defect that needs correcting.

This distinction makes restoration a discipline that requires technical expertise, knowledge of cinema history, and respect for the filmmaker’s aesthetic decisions.

The Economics of Restoration: How Does a Rescued Film Return to the Market?

On Wednesday, October 14, several film catalogue owners gathered for the session Rendez-vous des cataloguistes to present their collections and upcoming projects.

Companies represented were Pathé, Films du Jeudi, SND, Argos, STUDIOCANAL, STUDIO TF1, Cinématographique Lyre, and Gaumont.

This session was particularly important for understanding MIFC's economic nature.

A film catalogue is not merely a list of titles. It is a collection of films and their associated rights that can be offered across different markets. However, ownership of physical film materials, reproduction rights, distribution rights, and public screening rights does not always belong to a single organization. Therefore, the legal situation of each work must be examined individually.

When a film is restored, it may recover costs through several channels: theatrical re-releases, licensing to television networks and digital platforms, physical media editions, festival screenings, and international sales.

Restoration is therefore not simply a cultural expense. Under suitable circumstances, it can become part of a long-term economic strategy.

At this market, a film produced decades earlier once again becomes the subject of negotiations, investment, and marketing.

This was precisely what distinguished MIFC from other film markets in my eyes.

At many markets, negotiations focus on films that have not yet been made or were completed only recently. Here, the discussions may revolve around a film whose original distribution agreements date back half a century, yet which still has the potential to enter new markets.

Nevertheless, commercial success should not be the sole criterion for restoration. Some films have historical or artistic significance even when their potential financial returns are limited.

The economics of restoration becomes meaningful when it balances safeguarding cultural heritage with sustaining professional activity.

Jacques Tati: How Can a Filmmaker Be Introduced to a New Generation?

Among the programmes presented by STUDIOCANAL, Jacques Tati's film collection particularly caught my attention.

His six films—Jour de fête, Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot, Mon Oncle, PlayTime, Trafic, and Parade—were introduced as part of a coordinated programme.

The importance of such an initiative extends beyond simply making new versions of films available.

Reintroducing a filmmaker requires connecting their works, developing an appropriate visual identity, and finding ways to interest audiences who may never have heard the filmmaker’s name.

Tati provides a fascinating example because his cinema, with its spatial architecture, sound design, body movement, and humour emerging from the relationship between human beings and the modern environment, still offers possibilities for dialogue with contemporary viewers.

In PlayTime, architecture is not merely a backdrop; it is part of the film’s cinematic language. Glass buildings, geometric lines, reflections, and people moving through space create a world in which the modern city becomes one of the central characters.

For someone like me, who has a particular interest in the relationship between architecture and cinema, seeing such a film return to the big screen carries special meaning.

Details that might be lost on a small television screen become visible again in a cinema.

But the issue is not limited to projection quality. New posters, screening programmes, and different media can introduce a filmmaker’s work to audiences beyond those already familiar with it.

Restoration can restore visibility, but cultural programming and distribution can bring new spectators into the cinema.

When Cinema’s Past Is Already Planning for 2027

During STUDIO TF1’s presentation, several projects involving the distribution and restoration of cinematic works for 2027 were introduced.

The presentation highlighted films and collections featuring filmmakers such as Bertrand Tavernier, James Ivory, Henri-Georges Clouzot, Luchino Visconti, Jacques Feyder, Alexandre Astruc, and Julien Duvivier.

The presentation slides mentioned Rocco and His Brothers and Les Diaboliques.

Giuseppe Tornatore also announced a planned 4K restoration of the extended version of Cinema Paradiso.

What interested me about this presentation was the connection between restoration projects and the marketing and distribution calendars developed around them.

In some cases, a film’s theatrical re-release is coordinated with a home-video edition, a cultural anniversary, or a new production associated with the same work.

For example, some programmes highlighted established links between re-releases of older films and new productions on digital streaming platforms.

This relationship demonstrates that cinematic heritage is no longer confined to archival shelves. It can play an active role in the contemporary planning of distribution companies and digital media platforms.

Of course, there is a difference between announcing a project and completing it. The projects presented for 2027 should be understood as company plans rather than events whose realization is already guaranteed.

Nevertheless, this forward-looking approach is significant.

A film made decades ago can still have plans for the year ahead.