Co-presence with the spectator?

I think you're right with the black and white stock being romantic Jeremy, although I doubt that's what Artaud would have wanted. It gives the film a distanced feel from a modern audience too, perhaps helping to show that we should not expect to be able to understand Artaud's theories and practice without understanding the context they came from.

I agree with most people who've said that this film was more documentary than a film that clearly demostrated elements of the theatre of cruelty. However, I do think that at times the filming took on the challenge of putting the actor and the spectator in co-presence (obviously metaphorically rather than physically). A possible example was where Prevel is looking through the window at Colette as she gets increasingly hysterical trying to 'use her scream box' (as a side note, this is an amazing turn of phrase!), the audience joins Prevel looking into the room, making us as much spectators as much as Prevel is to the scene. Francis Vayone describes that one of Artaud's main reasons for rejecting the cinema was that it did 'not place the actor and the action in a real and direct co-presence with the spectator' (p180, 'Cinemas of Cruelty?', A Critical Reader) but here I think the film attempts to break this divide.

I would rate the film 3/5 as I think it had some interesting artistic moments and was definitely worth watching. However, I agree with others that it was quite slow moving, and sometimes lost my interest. In my opinion, the soundtrack was also very misplaced, giving the film a relaxed feel which did not suit the action.