Filmed in a behind-the-scenes video at the Folies Bergère on Sunday, December 7, Brigitte Macron calls #NousToutes activists who disrupted Ary Abittan‘s show the previous day ‘stupid bitches’. The comedian was cleared by a dismissal in January. The footage, provided by the French celebrity agency Bestimage and published by Public, ignites the debate: what is the value of the public interest compared to behind-the-scenes, and what does this Bestimage blunder reveal about our dependence on communicators?
At the Folies Bergère, the moment that changed everything
On Sunday, December 7, 2025, the corridors of the Folies Bergère buzz with contained agitation. The previous day, four activists from the #NousToutes collective interrupted a show by Ary Abittan. Tonight, the comedian is about to return to the stage. In the dressing rooms, Brigitte Macron appears, a familiar silhouette, measured gestures, words of comfort. In a low voice, a phrase bursts out, captured by a videographer on assignment for Bestimage: ‘stupid bitches’. The expression targets the masked activists who, the day before, had brandished the word "rapist" on signs. Additionally, they also wore masks bearing the comedian’s face.
The established facts, without exaggeration
The weekend of December 6 and 7, 2025, four #NousToutes activists interrupt a performance by Ary Abittan at the Folies Bergère. The next day, Brigitte Macron attends the show. Backstage, she talks to the comedian and mentions the previous day’s action. Moreover, she utters the word that, recorded by a cameraman, will ignite the web. The French celebrity agency Bestimage, which had exclusive rights to film behind the scenes, sells the footage to several outlets, including Paris Match, Closer, and Public. It is the latter that posts the leaked video with the sound and the incriminating word. On December 9 and 10, 2025, several media outlets pick up the information; Bestimage acknowledges a leak and calls it a ‘blunder’.
The first lady, caught on an open mic, is immediately criticized for the harshness of her words, while Maud Bregeon, government spokesperson, calls for restraint and requalifies these words as a critique of the activists’ "radical method," not the feminist cause. Her entourage explains that she was targeting not the cause, but "the radical method" used by the activists. The activists defend an action they deem necessary. Indeed, they wish to denounce a culture of impunity surrounding men accused of sexual violence.
On the judicial front, an essential reminder is necessary — Paris Court of Appeal, January 30, 2025, "for lack of sufficiently serious and consistent evidence": Ary Abittan benefited from a dismissal, confirmed on appeal on January 30, 2025. The court ruled that there was no sufficiently serious evidence. Moreover, no consistent element justified his referral to a court. Legally, he is innocent in this case. This clarification, while it does not extinguish the public debate, is the safeguard of any serious analysis.
Bestimage, a ‘blunder’ and an editorial blind spot
At the heart of the mechanism that made Brigitte Macron‘s phrase public is Bestimage. The agency, long directed by Mimi Marchand, claims to have mistakenly transmitted the footage containing the sound. Its video service acknowledges having checked the image quality and the clarity of faces, but not the soundtrack. The videographer who shot the footage offered his resignation. The agency, which considers it "responsible but not guilty," refused it. An organizational element is advanced: Mimi Marchand was absent, in mourning, and the usual editorial filter was deficient.
The explanation is a statement of vulnerability. It highlights the fragility of a validation chain when it relies on a tutelary figure. It also underscores a paradox. Indeed, society debates what is private or of public interest. However, an agency renowned for its framing sense let an open mic captured backstage slip through. This event changes everything.
Public, ‘public interest’ and the tightrope
The magazine Public assumes having broadcast the footage, which it presents as a "matter of public interest." The argument is based on the identity of the protagonist and the topic addressed. Indeed, the first lady speaks backstage at a theater. She talks about a feminist mobilization and a comedian involved in a sensitive case. The publication does not confirm the exact source of the footage but justifies it by the very nature of the statement. The decision, in the era of virality, propelled the affair beyond the celebrity sphere. It confronted two democratic demands: the public’s right to be informed and the protection of privacy off-mic and off-camera.
Mimi Marchand, a trajectory that goes beyond celebrity
To grasp the shockwave, one must consider Mimi Marchand‘s place in the French ecosystem. Her career follows a succession of lives: the margins, the press, the celebrity press, then the orbit of Élysée communication and more broadly politics. Close to the Macron couple, a skillful manager of access to images, she has made Bestimage a must for those who want to see or be seen. Her influence is such that it creates a halo of ambiguities: where does the media narrative end and the staging begin? In this maelstrom, a recent court decision serves as a benchmark. On July 1, 2025, the Paris Criminal Court sentenced her to 18 months suspended prison. Additionally, she must pay a €25,000 fine for blackmail against Karine Le Marchand. This concerns stolen photos of the host’s minor daughter. Mimi Marchand has appealed, and the decision is therefore not final.
This trajectory sheds light on the Folies Bergère affair. Because the Bestimage error occurs precisely within a system known for controlling sensitive images. When the puppet escapes the puppeteer, the scene offered to the public sweeps away years of reputation engineering.
The activists, anger, and the grammar of an action
The #NousToutes collective did not improvise its intrusion. It targeted a prestigious venue, a popular show, and a comedian marked by a media case. It chose rupture to attract attention. Thus, it aims to force the debate on social tolerance in the face of accusations of sexual violence. In the eyes of the activists, the dismissal does not erase the violence experienced by women. Moreover, it does not meet the demand for symbolic justice. The venue and the stage are used as a platform. This strategy shocks, annoys, convinces, or exhausts, depending on the angle from which it is viewed. It has, in any case, produced a notable effect. Indeed, it includes those who would not have paid attention to mere press releases.
The response manifested in the form of a hashtag taken up in unison. Additionally, it includes testimonies and analyses on the meaning of words. Many voices have turned the insult into a banner, showing that the battle of narratives is being played out. Indeed, it unfolds as much in words as in actions.
Brigitte Macron, the tarnished image and the line of defense
Since 2017, the spouse of the head of state has cultivated the image of a discreet and empathetic presence. Moreover, she is attentive to the world of education and societal causes. Her intervention, even captured surreptitiously, contrasts with this public portrait. Her entourage claims she wanted to reassure a shaken artist. Furthermore, she wanted to disapprove of a method deemed brutal, not the feminist cause. The nuance is real, but the digital age does not dwell on it. Online, a phrase becomes a totem. The irony lies in the fact that a specialist in calm interviews and restrained gestures is swept away. Indeed, these two words confine her.
However, it is important to maintain measure. The filmed moment is not a meeting, nor a platform. It is a backstage, with its share of blunders and frankness. One can see it as a language mistake. One can see it as a device error: an open mic captured backstage that should not have been. Moreover, a failing validation chain is possible, as is a media deciding on publication. This is done in the name of the public interest.
What the affair says about our era
The case reveals, by ricochet, the extent of institutions’ dependence on private communication intermediaries. The Élysée, like other structures, entrusts agencies with the task of organizing access and illuminating the setting. Moreover, they are responsible for regulating distances. This outsourcing shapes an ecosystem where control is the primary currency. From then on, the slightest failure becomes an event. The public discovers a fragment of true language where a rehearsed scene was expected. The accident serves as a revelator: the obsession with framing ends up weakening the speech itself.
This dependence also explains the speed of the escalation. A video escapes, social media accounts seize it, media relay it, political leaders comment. The progression follows a syncopated rhythm where corrections always arrive after the screenshots.
Law, ethics, and the gray area of backstage
By "public interest," we mean what illuminates a major public debate, beyond curiosity about private life. For a public figure, disclosure can be justified if the information is necessary and proportionate. Moreover, it must be verifiable and placed in context. Proponents of publication invoke this tightrope: informing without voyeurism. However, its opponents contest it vigorously.
A vexing question remains: should it have been published? The law does not prohibit showing what illuminates a public interest debate. It imposes, however, to prioritize information and consider proportion. On screen, the statement appears raw. Off-screen, it summarizes a conflict where justice, activism, and communication intertwine. The public has the right to know that the first lady speaks this way. It also has the right to be protected from the effects of an escalation that turns an interjection into a verdict.
Finally, two compasses must be recalled. The first is the presumption of innocence: it applies to Ary Abittan, and to any defendant. The second is the obligation to listen to victims or alleged victims: in France, 3919 answers women facing violence. Between these two requirements, society must learn to navigate without invective or denial.
After the blaze, the questions that remain
A sentence, two words, a spark: the week was enough to place Brigitte Macron in the middle of a storm she did not seek to trigger. On the sidelines, Ary Abittan continues his dates, burdened by a dismissal that does not extinguish the suspicions for some, nor the convictions for others. In the shadow of the spotlights, Bestimage is nursing a blunder that says a lot about the times: every control eventually meets its blind spot. Regarding Mimi Marchand, her appeal will be examined tomorrow. This hearing will determine if the court upholds the conviction. This could weaken the central figure of the images of power.
In this theater where the State flirts with staging, where private agencies hold sway over institutions, the public has become a permanent jury. It decides with captures, comments, shares. It is only at this pace that words regain their weight, and that anger ceases to rule.