Cannes '09

[Johann]

This year's Cannes Film Festival looks tasty, with new films from Ang Lee, Lars von Trier, Jane Campion, Quentin Tarantino, Alain Resnais (87 years young) and a highly anticipated film is Heath Ledger's last: Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

Sounds great to me..

www.festival-cannes.com

[Chris Knipp]

Cannes is pretty much always tasty. There will be these new films as the official selections in competition:


ALMODOVAR - LOS ABRAZOS ROTOS (Broken Embraces) - 2h09
Andrea ARNOLD - FISH TANK - 2h04
Jacques AUDIARD - UN PROPHETE - 2h30
Marco BELLOCCHIO - VINCERE - 2h08
Jane CAMPION - BRIGHT STAR - 2h00
Isabel COIXET - MAP OF THE SOUNDS OF TOKYO -1h44
Xavier GIANNOLI - A L'ORIGINE - 2h30
Michael HANEKE - DAS WEISSE BAND (The White Ribbon) - 2h24
Ang LEE - TAKING WOODSTOCK -2h00
Ken LOACH - LOOKING FOR ERIC - 1h56
LOU Ye - CHUN FENG CHEN ZUI DE YE WAN (Spring Fever) - 1h55
Brillante MENDOZA - KINATAY - 1h50
Gaspar NOE - ENTER THE VOID - 2h30
PARK Chan-Wook - BAK-JWI - (Thirst) - 2h13
Alain RESNAIS - LES HERBES FOLLES (Wild grass) - 1h36
Elia SULEIMAN - THE TIME THAT REMAINS - 1h49
Quentin TARANTINO - INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS - 2h28
Johnnie TO - VENGEANCE - 1h48
TSAI Ming-liang - VISAGE (face)- 2h18
Lars VON TRIER - ANTICHRIST - 1h44 Out-of-competition selections include films by BONG Joon-ho, the young and promising Mia HANSEN-LOVE, and HIrokazu KORE-EDA. And lots more.

Isabelle Huppert president of the feature film Jury. Paolo Sorrentino head of the Un Certain Regard Jury, Roschdy Zem of the Camera d'Or Jury.

[Johann]

Lars von Trier is the best filmmaker on the planet.
Why?
Because he said so, at a Cannes press conference that ended in shouts and screams...

I love Lars von Trier...

[Chris Knipp]

There's a lot of shouting and screaming at Cannes, it seems, and it never means that much. All I can say is that I have ceased to hate Von Trier. Or had done, up till now. That could change.

I was pleased that Audiard's UN PROPHETE got good notices. I like Audiard and hope for good new things from him. I haven't gotten much information yet about Cannes. It seems some of the out-of-competition films have been the best. I'm curious about INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS.

[Johann]

Trier has always been a Cinema God of sorts to me.

Every film he's made has been interesting to me.
His latest, AntiChrist (not a very provocative title, is it?) sounds awesome to my ears, as Willem Dafoe said making it was like "a dream" and Trier himself said it is a dream picture.
I have no idea what it's about but I will watch any film he makes and I will love it.
His creative process is organic and real and extremely compelling to me. On a good day I'm prone to say Dancer in the Dark is the best film ever made. Or Breaking the Waves.
He's a modern giant to me.
A serious film artist.
I'd love to meet him or talk to him.
He inspires a reverence that I can't explain.
Men like him are the ones who should be film artists.
Remember, he has a "holy relationship with Dreyer and Tarkovsky" that informs his work. (Even though his films are vastly different from those two Masters).

[Johann]

I've been reading articles on AntiChrist and my God, this may be the most shocking film ever filmed.

Has anybody read about the scenes?
People leaving screenings absolutely horrified, faces blanched, crying?
This is one hell of a provocative film.
I'm getting nervous and excited about it HUGE.
This is a film that will revolt and disturb many many people...

[Johann]

I've finally seen the trailer now some half-dozen times and I don't think it's all that shocking. It's just sheer organic, timeless and freakishly intense.

I love it and I haven't even seen it.
Trier is a Visionary.
There is some very very offensive stuff in it (that I've read articles on) but I'm on Trier's side all the way.
I'm with him. I'll give it up for him any. time. at all.
He just amazes me with his art.
Just amazes me.
I won't post a link to the trailer because I don't want the more conservative readers to get all bent out of shape.
I hardly ever check my swing, but I'll check it for AntiChrist.

[Chris Knipp]

Hey, let's watch the trailers of some of the other Cannes competition films!

ALMODOVAR (http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/trailer-of-los-abrazos-rotos-a-pedro-almodovar-film/14741038)
AUDIARD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyOyUwwKgvc)
BELLOCCHIO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrOnUUOaQ9Q)
CAMPION (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0afEOtb-mM&feature=PlayList&p=610CDB2FB9DD25D8&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=14)
COIXET (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1wAEIoBvoQ)
ANG LEE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlLD_7k68BM)
LOACH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDiAvn_CC08)
MENDOZA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YwtQZLNHBU)
TARANTINO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCqfsKGgePY)
JOHNNIE TO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTjITgMfD4w)

ANTICHRIST (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTzzfFdxaY0) looks like another anguished and overwrought thing, like Breaking the Waves.

[Johann]

Overwrought?
I thought you were someone who was in favour of provocation..

[Chris Knipp]

Yes, maybe I am, but isn't overwrought different from provocative?

[Johann]

Yes, that's why the film isn't overwrought.
The two can't exist in the same film, right?

[Chris Knipp]

No, they can, and in Breaking the Waves, they do.

[cinemabon]

I found the trailer for "Antichrist" very confusing - delusion versus reality and deliberately confusing the audience with mixed messages. Suspence I can handle. Misdirection for its own sake I cannot.

[cinemabon]

"Taking Woodstock" seemed hilarious in comparison with "Antichrist." I only knew that Yasgur (hope I'm spelling that right) was the farmer on whose land they held the festival as mentioned in the song "Woodstock" by CSN&Y. It would be fun to think that some local person acting out of his own self interest in preserving his father's failing business brought about the biggest social gathering in the history of mankind. Wonderful premise.

[cinemabon]

My stand on gratuitous violence as an art form is well documented on this site. I watched the trailer "Inglorious Bastards" with detached revulsion. I find the latest offering from Tarantino just another in his long line of films that offer little in the way of story but much in the form of overt graphic violent images. His penchant toward this aspect of humanity is a niche in which I find no kindred spirit.

[Johann]

Chris, you say overwrought.
I say Total Art.

We differ on Trier.
It's nothing personal.
I know what he's up to.
It's art.
And it's art that I really am engaged by.
Anti-Christ has already engaged me, and I know I'll love his craft and odd "story".

Same with Tarantino.
These guys aren't making movies for specific types of people.
They're making them for the PLANET.
If the subject matter is not your cup of tea, fine.
But there are some people who really tune in when these two guys present something to the World.
These two are GLOBAL filmmakers.
They know that there are folks out there (in all kinds of countries) who have open enough minds to go the full monjonna on these works of cinematic art. Trier and Tarantino are under no obligation to provide kow-towing works to provincial film buffs.

Their canvas is much, much broader and much more interesting to me than scores and scores of "mainstream" films and their makers. These guys are idols to me.

But I respect the distance you put between yourself and these types of films. If it ain't your cup of tea, then it ain't your cup of tea...bottom line. I can respect that. No problem.

We all have our preferences, and we must allow for differences of opinion. (I'm slowly but surely accepting that fact).

[Chris Knipp]

Taking Woodstock looks like fun. There are excellent reports on the Audiard, and I like Audiard's films a lot to begin with, so I'm looking forward to that. The Jane Campion is about John Keats and this finally may be a great film role for the very talented Ben Whishaw. I think all those films I listed the trailers for are worth going out and seeing.

As for the Tarantino, I think he may have gone too far this time. I don not mind the violence in his previous movies, but this sounds like a misstep. It's been reviewed in the NYTimes as such. But I'd be very surprised if it doesn't have some great moments, no matter what. Kill Bill 1 and 2 is a very hard act to follow.

As for Lars, I have liked his milder films. I finally began to get what he was up to with The Five Obstructions (http://www.cinescene.com/reviews/rulesofthegame.htm) and also enjoyed his The Boss of It All (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469754/usercomments?start=6) . In these he is not trying so hard to shock but his contrarian and conceptual outlook is original, entertaining, and thought-provoking. I don't say total art. I say sometimes highly original work. I agree the trailer for Anti-Christ sends mixed signals and gives one no idea what lies in store.

Lars seems to have a very grand image of himself, but partly that is simply a pose. Tarantino is mostly making movies not so much for the planet but for himself, and for other total movie nerds like himself. He writes wonderful dialogue. As does Jarmusch, sometimes.

All of these are directors whose work must be seen. And Jarmusch and Tarantino have given me some of my greatest viewing pleasure of any American fiolms of the Eighties and Nineties.

I judge each director's work on a case-by-case basis. "Even Homer nods." Not everything is a masterpiece, even from the masters.

[Johann]

Taking Woodstock does look awesome.
They really nailed the Michael Lang character.
The trailer is great.
I watch any film by Ang Lee.
But I have a real resistance to Brokeback Mountain.
I still haven't been able to rent that one, even with Heath Ledger in it. But I know it's a great film.

The Campion sounds awesome.

Tarantino does make movies for himself but he made the statement at Cannes that he makes films for the whole world and I know exactly what he means.
I'm gonna have a hard time liking Brad Pitt's scenes.
He just seems corny in the trailer: And I want my scalps!
Are you kidding me? If Gerard Butler uttered those words, I might be able to believe it but Brad Pitt? It's gotta be a comedy on some level..I read that Eli Roth said "Basterds" is like porn for Jews. That is a wild statement to make, but what's the context?
Scalping Nazi's?
I mean come on, there ain't nothing wrong with that!
Where's the beef with the idea of scalping those Sick Nazi fucks?
When I think of Kubrick and how he viewed the holocaust and his utter bewilderment over how what happened in WWII could have possibly been committed, what's wrong with a little cinematic payback? I'd say that this kind of cathartic violence is way long past due. And when you ask "who's the director?"
and the answer is "Tarantino"...
You better believe that it will have some great moments.
The trailer has that one shot of a guy running down a corridor like Animal Mother in Full Metal Jacket when he said Fuck All You Assholes!. He's got belts of ammo wrapped around his wrists like Rambo. Can't wait to see what that noise is all about.

I also love the posters for Basterds, which I noticed in a couple theatres. They're like the old WWII propaganda posters ("Join the fight!") but they're not quite the same, with an SS helmet and blood, strong manly arm holding a vintage rifle. Greatness.
I'll enjoy this one, even though Brad Pitt rubs me the wrong way.

Trier is who he is.
You either embrace his stuff or you're turned off by it.
He's esoteric and dark and he definitely has a grand image of himself. But so did Kubrick. Kubrick felt that it was a priviledge to work with him as a director because he worked harder than anyone on the fucking set. You never seen that man wasting a single second in his film career. He knew the jobs of every single crew member, and could probably do their job for them. He had that much knowledge and skill.

[Johann]

Peter Howell (film critic for the Toronto Star) is in Cannes and on saturday he had a piece in the paper called Ledger's Last Gasp, in reference to the gasps the audience in Cannes emitted when they first were jolted by Ledger's funereal character "Tony" hanging from a noose in Terry Gilliam's new film.

excerpt from his article:

There were gasps from the audience at the world press premiere of Heath Ledger's last movie as the first glimpse of the actor is his apparently lifeless body hanging from a noose.

The macabre scene is about 25 minutes into The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, the adventure fantasy Ledger was making when the 28-year-old died of an accidental overdose. Ledger's character Tony looks convincingly dead and needs to have his heart massaged in order to return from the brink. It's disturbing to sit through, and the film also has references to someone dying before their time and another staying forever young. At a news conference, Terry Gilliam said momentary consideration was given to removing potentially disturbing material from the movie, out of respect for Ledger and his family. Gilliam's initial instinct upon hearing of Ledger's demise was to scrap the movie altogether.

But it was decided the best way to honor the Aussie actor's memory was to make the film the way Ledger had planned it. Gilliam enlisted Ledger pals Jude law, Johnny Depp and Colin Farrell to salvage the film. Each plays a later version of Tony as the character is transformed by a magical mirror while trying to save a young girl's soul from the Devil's grasp. Gilliam now considers Ledger the film's co-director, since his death forced creative changes that resulted in a very different film. Gilliam: "It was people's love for Heath that propelled this thing forward. We started with crying and then we started laughing"

[Johann]

And the large photo of Heath in a chalk white pinstripe suit and white mask around his neck that could be a mask from Eyes Wide Shut that accompanies the photo is very striking to me.
I'm actually getting the whole article laminated.
Mr. Howell gives the kind of reports i want from festivals like Cannes.

[Johann]

Michael Haneke's THE WHITE RIBBON is this year's Palm D'or Winner.

Congrats Mr. Haneke!
Can't wait to see it!
Apparently it's about a children's choir during WWI, and it deals with the origins of terrorism (?)
Interesting...very interesting...
It's running time is 150 minutes, and it's been reported as a very brooding film...

[Chris Knipp]

The headline of Manohla Dargis' NYTimes roundup (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/movies/25cannes.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper) of the awards, "Violence Reaps Rewards at Cannes Festival," highlights her disapproval of some of the choicee--though not the top two.

PALME D'OR and GRAND PRIX.

Dargis indicates the major awards made perfect sense to the press. She points out that Haneke, the Golden Palm winner for his "much-admired" prelude-to-Naziism film THE WHITE RIBBON, previously won the Cannes Grand Prize in 2001 for THE PIANO TEACHER/LA PIANISTE (with its stars Huppert and Jacquot winning the best actor awards). She refers to Audiard's Grand Prize winner, the making-of-a-master-criminal film A PROPHET as "pitch-perfect" and notes it was "the critical favorite throughout the festival."

But Dargis was frankly disapproving or skeptical of other announced Cannes awards:

SPLIT JURY PRIZE.


Far more surprising was the Jury Prize (third place), which was split between FISH TANK, a slice of Brit-grit realism from Andrea Arnold, and the neo-exploitation vampire flick THIRST, from the South Korean director Park Chan-Wook. Both were booed by the press watching the show via live broadcast. DIRECTING, SCREENWRITING AWARDS.

She was unimpressed by the directing and screenwriting awards.
[the] winner of the director award was Brillante Mendoza, from the Philippines, whose grisly, widely loathed shocker, 'Kinatay' ('Slaughter'), hinges on a man who doesn't prevent a murder. The screenwriting award went to Mei Feng for 'Spring Fever,' a rather baggy if underappreciated drama about young Chinese malaise. ACTING and LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS.

No problem for Dargis with the acting (Charlotte Gainsbourg, in ANTI-CHRIST, Christoph Waltz in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS) and lifetime achievement (Resnais) prizes.
It's easy to imagine that Ms. Huppert [head of the Jury] and her fellow juror, the actress Asia Argento, both ferocious screen performers, were impressed with the intensity of Ms. Gainsbourg's performance, which involves a fair amount of nudity and some frantic (and graphic) backwoods masturbation. Despite her earlier disapproval of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, Dargis wrote that the choice of Christoph Waltz "made everyone happy."
Speaking in French, English and German, Mr. Waltz called the film an "unbelievable experience," thanked his co-star Brad Pitt, along with the creator of Mr. Waltz's "unique and inimitable" character, Colonel Landa. His voice colored with emotion, he addressed Mr. Tarantino directly: "You gave me my vocation back."

[Johann]

Great stuff Chris.
Thanks!

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks should go to Manohla, who's done a bang-up job on Cannes for the NYTimes this year.

[Johann]

Thanks Manohla!
Film festival coverage needs to be done by people who understand what might be relevant to readers/film buffs.

She's got it for sure.

[oscar jubis]

I am happy for Andrea Arnold (Jury Prize for FISH TANK). Her RED ROAD placed at #11 on my 2007 list. We need more recognition for female filmmakers. Obviously I haven't seen the new film but I am extremely curious. It doesn't have a US distributor at the moment though. Ms. Arnold won the Oscar for Best Short film in 2003 (Wasp).

[Chris Knipp]

I said in my review of LEMON TREE that "if you want to see the Palestinians' plight depicted with ironic brilliance, you must turn to the films of Elia Suleiman." Well, you may soon have a chance to test that statement by viewing Suleiman's new film, THE TIME THAT REMAINS. It has just been shown at Cannes and appears to have been well received. There were especially positive responses from Mike D'Angelo of AV Club and Howard Feinstein in Screen. Suleiman was on the Cannes Jury in 2006 and received the Jury Prize for Divine Intervention in 2002. There's an IndieWIRE (http://www.ifc.com/blogs/thedaily/2009/05/cannes-the-time-that-remains.php) summary of English language reviews. The filmmaker's summary is as follows:
THE TIME THAT REMAINS is a semi biographic film, in four historic episodes, about a family -my family - spanning from 1948, until recent times.
The film is inspired by my father’s diaries of his personal accounts, starting from when he was a resistant fighter in 1948, and by my mother’s letters to family members who were forced to leave the country since then.
Combined with my intimate memories of them and with them, the film attempts to portray the daily life of those Palestinians who remained in their land and were labeled « Israeli-Arabs », living as a minority in their own homeland. I think we'd have to take with a grain of salt Derek Elley's VARIETY comment (in a somewhat dismissive review) that this time Suleiman "avoids referencing most of the key political markers of the past 60 years." Suleiman's work is very keenly observed and personal, but in the Palestinian context every private event references "political markers."

[cinemabon]

Critic at large John Powers posted a very nice piece yesterday on Terri Gross's show "Fresh Air" that airs on NPR. Here is the link to the fifteen minute piece:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104536316

[Chris Knipp]

That was excellent. Thanks. And there seems to be a second installment coming (?). If so, you must let us know!

The most interesting aspect to me, apart from his smart and personal observations about Haneke, von Trier, Audiard, and Mendoza's films, is the idea that Jury chair Isabelle Huppert, with her taste for the extreme, actually may have strongly influenced the tone of the year with awards for extreme movies. And the fact that US paper cutbacks seemed to make it quieter for an American correspondent. Mahohla Dargis seems to have been the only NYTimes reviewers eent this time, though in previous years two or three of their critics were there commenting. But she did not herself ake note of that, that I saw.

[Johann]

Excellent indeed. Really enjoyed listening to that.
Powers sounds like a great critic.
He's right on the money with Trier's film.
It was designed to cause a stir and it did.
The buzz is immense for Anti-Christ after it received an acting award.

It had better play at the 34th TIFF or I'll be very upset.
(And it had better be uncensored).

[Chris Knipp]

Notice what he said about the trailer for AntiChrist? It is meant to mislead. And the comic element. I think it's stronger in von Trier than Americans grasp. I urge you or anyone here if you have not to see THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS. That is in my view the key (I called it (http://www.cinescene.com/reviews/rulesofthegame.htm) the "passkey") to von Trier's personality, outlook, and work. It was hard to see in theaters but is now easily available on DVD. You enjoy harping on one director or film, but note also that AntiChrist was not the most important item on the excellent John Powers' Cannes list. You make it sound in your last post as if this was a radio talk about Lars von Trier. What Powers explains is that Trier's whole aim was to generate buzz, and he succeeded, just in time for the movie's opening in Europe. You have fallen for it. Triers is a trickster and a provocateur. and beyond that he is a very successful self-promoter. He is a nicer guy than people realize. His movies are overvalued. But they are always worth a look. And sometimes, especially for some young person, they will rock your world. I prefer artists who go about their work more quietly, in general, and note that Powers, again (another voice) is very favorable in what he says about the understated, humanistic new work of Elia Suleiman, THE TIME THAT REMAINS. I was interested also that Powers chose not even to go to see Brilliante [a misnomer?] Mendoza's KALELDO but admitted that now that it's won the jury prize (through Isabelle Huppert's influence?) he'll probably have to watch it. Sometimes you seem to like watching movies that have been heavily hyped and become a scandal. I prefer to discover ones that have not been publicized at all and that nobody even knows about.

[Johann]

Trier stirs the cinema world up in big ways.
I'll fall for anything he does, I'll admit that fully.
I have no problem being misled by that man.
I take utter joy and glee in it.
It allows me to participate in his world.

So many people want to criticize Trier for his modus operandi.
Powers points out that critics at cannes love to clamour to get into a screening and then fucking boo it to their hearts content.
What the fuck is that all about?
I'd be simmering rage if I was at one of those screenings.

They all wanna get in on the "hot ticket" and then tear down the walls when it pushes your buttons. I fucking hate that.
Any film critic worth their weight knows who the hell Lars von Trier is and what he's capable of.

To me this year's Cannes is Trier's triumph.
He's got full command right now (as far as I'm concerned) and I love his work to death. Sure it's offensive. Sure it's provocative.
Sure it's bizarre. But it's ART bizarre. It's "Trier against the World" and I am fully in his corner.
I'll never apologize for it either.

[Johann]

And his movies aren't overvalued or just "worth a look".
They're PROFOUND.
Every one.

He rubs you the wrong way.
Oh well.
He's a cinema God to me.

[Chris Knipp]

Please comment on THE BOSS OF IT ALL and THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS.

[Johann]

First chance I get to see them.

Trier definitely has humour in his work. I've noticed it numerous times (especially in the astounding The Idiots) but it doesn't dominate any of his films that I've seen.
"the Boss of it All" sounds like it has more humour in it than other things he's done.

There are other great films that were shown at Cannes.
While I definitely feel that Trier is the triumphant filmmaker there this year, there is no question that there are other beautiful artistic films that were in the competition that I can't wait to see.
Haneke's being a prime example, and Powers description of the French runner-up has me very interested in seeing that as well.

I single out films and filmmakers, yes.
That is my prerogative.
We all have our biases.
I don't compromise on Trier because of what he's given me as a film buff. He's given me more than Tarantino or any other filmmaker in the competition this year and I'm tremendously jazzed about seeing Anti-Christ. You can call me weird or strange or warped. I really don't care. That is how I feel about the man and his work. He engages me like no one since Kubrick.
He's so unpredictable and so esoteric and arty it's astounding.

People tend to either be in the "revulsion" category with him or the "total acceptance" category. I'm in the latter, no doubt about it. No one on this earth makes films like Trier.
OK, maybe Gaspar Noe...
Trier's brand of provocation comes from a very wild and dark place. He's got a fearless freedom of expression that I am attracted to. I love men who are willing to say "Fuck it. Here's "my vision". I will not compromise for anyone. They can take it or leave it but they will be affected by it one way or another".
That's the way you have to do it.
95% of filmmakers out there compromise on things.
The select few who don't are in a very special class.
Jarmusch is in that class.

[Chris Knipp]

I'd say you don't know Trier till you see THE BOSS OF IT ALL and THE FIVE OBSTRUCTIONS. They will lead you to adjust your picture of him and you will see that his provocations are often in the nature of having fun, and he does have quite a sense of humor, and also a kind of game-playing mentality. He likes to set things up to make somebody look foolish and to confuse or confound people.

Another provocative filmmaker is Bruno Dumont. I've gotten into debates with strangers coming out of theaters about his films, something that doesn't happen very easily in the Bay Area (it happens quite readily in NYC where people feel easy about talking to strangers). His most successful films are very intense and also puzzling, indigestible experiences. Definitely that is something to strive for both for a viewer and a filmmaker. Doubtless Pedro Costa seeks that effect. And definitely Gaspar Noe. I'd say Trier's effect is mroe cerebral than those.

Consider that many other filmmakers ahve seemed like that when they were new, for example Antonioni's L'AVVENTURA, which was wonderfully fresh and diffdrent when it was first shown in theaters.

I would also say that at Cannes this time besides von Trier (who so desperately WANTS you to want to see his new film) and Haneke (also a provocateur), I want to see the new films by Jane Campion, Elie Suleiman, and Audiard. I'm leery of the Tarantino.

For babes in lovely gowns at Cannes, go here:

http://popculturenerd.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/best-of-cannes-2009/

Am I right that the taste level is higher than at the Oscars?

As for the main 2009 Cannes awards, I'm more doutbful about them. It was different last year when top prizes went to THE CLASS, IL DIVO, and GOMORRAH, all good (and serious) even if I'm kinda disappointed with the two Italian winners ultimately.

Yorgos Lanthimos' DOGTOOTH, the Un Certain Regard prize winner, might also appeal as some kind of provocation.

The Camera d'Or winner, Warwick Thornton's SAMSON AND DELILAH, an Aboriginal teenagers story, also looks very good.

[Johann]

Excellent.

Those dresses...wowza.
You could stare All. Night. Long.


So you're refusing to see the Tarantino?
How unfortunate.

It IS going to be a very graphic gorefest.
But the cinematographer is Robert Richardson.
You have to see it if you're a cinephile. Have to.
His work on Kill Bill?
Forget about it.

[Chris Knipp]

I just said I was leery of the Tarantino. That means skeptical. It doesn't mean I'd pass it up.

[Chris Knipp]

Remember that list I gave at the start of the Cannes in competition films? Let's take another look now that the festival is over and reports are out.
ALMODOVAR - LOS ABRAZOS ROTOS (Broken Embraces) - 2h09
Andrea ARNOLD - FISH TANK - 2h04
Jacques AUDIARD - UN PROPHETE - 2h30
Marco BELLOCCHIO - VINCERE - 2h08
Jane CAMPION - BRIGHT STAR - 2h00
Isabel COIXET - MAP OF THE SOUNDS OF TOKYO -1h44
Xavier GIANNOLI - A L'ORIGINE - 2h30
Michael HANEKE - DAS WEISSE BAND (The White Ribbon) - 2h24
Ang LEE - TAKING WOODSTOCK -2h00
Ken LOACH - LOOKING FOR ERIC - 1h56
LOU Ye - CHUN FENG CHEN ZUI DE YE WAN (Spring Fever) - 1h55
Brillante MENDOZA - KINATAY - 1h50
Gaspar NOE - ENTER THE VOID - 2h30
PARK Chan-Wook - BAK-JWI - (Thirst) - 2h13
Alain RESNAIS - LES HERBES FOLLES (Wild grass) - 1h36
Elia SULEIMAN - THE TIME THAT REMAINS - 1h49
Quentin TARANTINO - INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS - 2h28
Johnnie TO - VENGEANCE - 1h48
TSAI Ming-liang - VISAGE (face)- 2h18
Lars VON TRIER - ANTICHRIST - 1h44 Of those, the only ones by now we don't have much of a clue about are: Bellocchio's VINCERE, Coixet's MAP OF THE SOUNDS OF TOKYO, Giannoli's A L'ORIGINE, Loach's LOOKING FOR ERIC, Lou Ye's SPRING FEVER or Johnnie TO'S VENGEANCE, and Tsai Ming-liang's VISAGE.

Well VINCERE'S trailer doesn't look that interesting; it's standard historical fare and the Italians still don't get one's blood pressure up despite the recent successes of IL DIVO and GOMORRAH.

MAP OF THE SOUNDS OF TOKYO's at leasst looks rather intriguing.: maybe looks are the main thing it has going for it. It's got steamy sex, by reports, and lovely visuals, though Variety was unimpressed and Cannes boos (which can be either good or bad) were reported.

VENGEANCE: We can expect the JOHNNIE TO will be up to speed for him: he's the gangster movie master. A "smoothly executed revenge thrilller" that finds the director "in assured action-movie form," says Variety's Justin Chang--and a novel feature is a starring role for the French rock star movie actor (THE MAN ON THE TRAIN), Johnny Hallyday.

Ken Loach is reliable. It sounds like this portrait of aging soccer star Eric Catona may be uneven but for Loach fans will have rewards.

I'm wondering about GiannolIi's A L'ORIGINE or Lou Ye's SPRING FEVER. Both directors have interested me in the past.

A L'ORIGINE is a true story of a small-time crook who builds a highway and has beloved French movie actors, François Cluzet, Gérard Depardieu, and Emmanuelle Devos. I like Giannoli's EAGER BODIEs, with hot young newcomers Laura Smet and Nicolas Duvauchelle, and I absolutely love his THE SINGER with Cecile de France and Depardieu, a shame that didn't get US release if I'm remembering right. I definitly want to see this and have high hopes.

SPRING FEVER: We discussed Lou Ye's Tienanmin Square saga SUMMER PALACE on this site; I liked it more than Oscar did. Derek Elley of Variety is critical of this new one, noting inconsistency in the visuals due to shaky shooting conditions. However, I'd want to see it. It's got lots of gay sex, though this time Lou evaded Chinese censorship or censure by shooting as a Hong Kong director.

VISAGE: We know something about Tsai Ming-Liang, of WHAT TIME IS IT THERE?, GOODBYE, DRAGON INN, WAYWARD CLOUD, I have mixed feelings, and have been alternately enchanted and disappointed; but he's a real auteur. VISAGE is French-made, the Variety reviewer dislikes it, and I am skeptical.

What about PARK Chan-Wook's THIRST (that's the English translation)? Variety this time says he's not up to speed, "susrprisingly unnuanced." And it's conceivable that Park has run out of juice since the intensities of OLDBOY and his VENGEANCE films, which are brilliant but after a while, wearying.

Almodovar's BROKEN BRACES has a Sony Classics release coming and reports are it's very enjoyable and once again features the increasingly accomplished Penelope Cruz. Surely not to be missed, and no mystery.

[Chris Knipp]

I don't know how reliable Mike D'Angelo of Onion AV Club is, but I tend to like the AV Club's independent and down-to-earth evaluations of movies, and D'Angelo was their Cannes guy I'm intrigued by his words about Bellocchio's VINCERE. You can't tell anything afrom a trailer, so I have no right to condemn it as dull on that basis. D'Angelo suggests it's an intense, unconventional history flick:
[Bellocchio's] recent films, which include My Mother’s Smile and Good Morning, Night, have struck me as a tad stodgy and abstruse. So when his latest effort, Vincere, introduced Benito Mussolini right off the bat, I confess that I inwardly groaned, steeling myself for another dull, dutiful biopic. Whereupon the 70-year-old Bellocchio unleashed an aural and visual assault so dizzying and unrelenting that it more or less recapitulates the birth of Fascism in cinematic form. Mundane film-critic adjectives like "operatic" and "expressionistic" fail to convey the vivid sense of being steamrolled in your seat by the first hour's nunchuck intertitles (I swear one nearly took my head off), speed-demon pace, shrieking violins and silent-era performances. As Mussolini, Filippo Timi evinces the fearless bravado of the young Nicolas Cage, which makes it startling to see him repeatedly upstaged by Giovanna Mezzogiorno's astonishingly feral work as Ida Dalser, who was allegedly Il Duce's first wife and the mother of his first-born son. As it turns out, Vincere is ultimately an exposé that laments the way these two innocents were first tossed aside and then, when Dalser refused to go away quietly, institutionalized, which is a bit like making an entire movie about how Pol Pot used to smack his wife around. And when the film’s agenda finally crystallizes—the second hour sticks exclusively with Dalser and her son, viewing Mussolini only via archival footage (which is a bit disorienting, since Timi looks nothing like him)—Bellocchio’s formal ingenuity largely subsides as well, though Mezzogiorno remains mesmerizingly larger than life. If Mezzogiorno blooms in this that's nice. She has mostly been in conventional films and roles but she has a lot of warmth and presence. She's a true Italian babe. D'Angelo didn't ahve much use for any of the big prizewinners, nor for Tarantino's new one. He liked Giannoli's film a lot. I can't figure out his system since he gives VINCERE only a B and A- to several others yet says VINCERE is his favorie competition film. It's too laborious online to sift through his scores and they're not summarized anywhere. He also is very keen on Suleiman's THE TIME THAT REMAINS, and like others, he likes Sam Raimi's new horror movie.

Have a look at his letter (http://www.avclub.com/articles/cannes-09-day-five,28137/) to Lars von Trier re: ANTICHRIST that betins, "Dear Lars,
I love you, man..."

"You may have whiffed huge this time, but movies like yours are what the Festival de Cannes should ideally be about."

"This is one terrible movie, Lars. I’m genuinely glad I crossed the Atlantic to see it."

Read this "letter,"Johan. It's not dismissive. It's a very smart and appreciative discussion, loving even.

[Johann]

Chris, why did you have to let the cat out of the bag?

Now everybody knows that I'm Mike D'Angelo!

[Chris Knipp]

Ha! Sorry.

He does look (http://www.nyfcc.com/members.php?member=8) kinda like you.

I am still finding out who people really are, like Glenn Kenny, who I just learned about from seeing The Girlfriend Experience.. All I know so far is that Mike D'Angelo is connected with AV Club and Esquire and TimeOut New York (every NYC film critic has to hustle, outside of the five or six who have regular jobs with benefits). D'Angelo is getting a putative prestige level, since he's now in the New York Film Critics' Circle. Why is Nathan Lee no longer listed there? Maybe he hates Armond White too much?

Readers may be interested in a GreenScene podcast (http://daily.greencine.com/GC-CANNES-2009-Wrap-Up.mp3) interview with Mike about the Cannes Festival and Twitter and how he managed to make it to Cannes with no real expense account money of his own. He started some kind of personal send-Mike-to-Cannes fund, and then he got hired by The Onion, which almost covered his costs. He also talks about his ridiculously demanding evaluation system, which sort of explains why he regularly gives new work by famous filmmakers grades like 36 or 44.