The beginning of The Phantom of the Cinémathèque described how Langlois’s project produced “a way of seeing films” as the “living coexisting with shadows of the dead.” Intrinsically didactic, the programming of the Cinémathèque was intended to educate the audience not only about the content of Langlois’s selected films, but also—and primarily—about the art of film itself. Knowledge of cinema was privileged above all else; the schedule could have brought in more viewers had films been repeated, as well as more understandable to an average viewer had all of the films been in French. By showing Buster Keaton films with Czech cards, as discussed in the film, Langlois chose to forego the audience’s ease of viewing to induce “eye training” for the viewers.

This curatorial decision by Langlois at the Cinémathèque seems the antithesis of how Paul today explained the d’Orsay’s orientation towards its visitors. At one point during our visit, he described the museum space as existing outside of everyday life, a place that many visitors enter with the expectation of viewing beautiful works of art in a sort of calming entertainment. The Impressionist galleries do the opposite of “training the eye,” employing standard lighting throughout in accordance with audience preferences.

Having an inside view of how both the Cinémathèque and the d’Orsay conceptualize their relationship with their audiences, how might the institutions inform each other? Should any museum value relaxation over didacticism? When should the preferences of the audience be disregarded, if ever? Is it possible for museums to “train the eye” like Langlois attempted to do?