ellipsis7 wrote:Full article in LA Times... Blu Ray from ITV DVD on 29th June
Thanks for that - a very safe preorder of the Blu-ray, I reckon. ITV's presentational standards have been surprisingly good when it comes to their HD releases, so this should be well worth the wait.
I watched chunks of the Criterion edition recently for the first time in years, and while it's still pretty damn impressive for a nearly ten-year-old release it's definitely getting a bit long in the tooth.
I don't have a lot to add to his take: it's a very fair review of an extremely enjoyable but decidedly lightweight and tonally choppy film. Given that the whole notion of a Loach-directed supernatural buddy movie starring a global celebrity as himself is utterly bizarre, he commendably decides to play it entirely straight (as I recall, there's just one overt special effect in the entire film, and even that's pretty low key - it involves a stereo coming to life), but the Cantona scenes are so much fun that the film tends to fall a bit flat whenever the central plot mechanics kick in - largely because if you've seen Raining Stones, The Navigators or Sweet Sixteen the central storyline of a postman whose teenage son gets into gangster-related difficulties but who can always rely on his mates to help him out will look decidedly familiar, despite excellent performances (little-known TV actor Steve Evets in particular).
But at its best it's hugely entertaining (Paul Laverty only agreed to write the script if he could take the piss out of Cantona, and Cantona rises magnificently to the occasion), and I suspect it'll loom large in great-night-out recommendations over the next few weeks - it's opening in Britain next month. And I certainly preferred it to just about anything Loach has done since Sweet Sixteen, very much including the very disappointing The Wind That Shakes The Barley.
Video piece of Thelma Schoonmaker @ Cannes on THE RED SHOES restoration (with some tantalising vibrantly coloured clips of the same), also she mentions BLIMP is next up for restoration, half the money raised already for that...
so - mid-point predictions, subject to revision and just for kicks:
Palme d'Or: The Time That Remains, Elia Suleiman
Grand Jury Prize: Das Weisse Band, Michael Haneke
Jury Prize: Visage, Tsai Ming-Liang
Best Director: Jane Campion, Bright Star
Best Actor: Michael Fassbender, Fish Tank
Best Actress: Giovanna Mezzogiorno, Vincere
Best Screenplay: Looking for Eric, Paul Laverty
Nothing wrote:Best Screenplay: Looking for Eric, Paul Laverty
I'd be absolutely gobsmacked if anyone who'd actually seen the film agreed with this - the screenplay is largely responsible for the film's tonal waywardness, not to mention its galumphing cherry-picking of Loach's greatest hits as a contrived narrative backdrop for the central Cantona scenario. Out of Loach's regular writing collaborators - Barry Hines and the late Jim Allen being the others - Laverty strikes me as being comfortably the weakest as a screenwriter.
Well hey, Laverty's been getting a lot of praise in the trades. I may be reaching though - he won that prize already for Sweet Sixteen, so they may not want to repeat history. I'll probably change that prediction before the end of the festival. Best Screenplay = Gaspar Noe? :-k
The Noe must be an outsider for the Palme, actually, if it's as bold and ambitious as they say it is - and successful in that bold ambition. She'll want to give something major to Haneke, of course, but the Palme might look a little too much like croneyism for comfort. I have a feeling that the Resnais will be disappointing. Who else is there? Campion? Maybe an outside bid from a lesser known director in the latter half of the festival... My money's still on Suleiman, unless the screening goes the way of Anti-Christ.
He hasn't made anything genuinely great in years and they've given it a 2nd rate slot - only one screening, in the afternoon - so it seems token. I may, of course, be wrong. And I really can't see Huppert, Celan & Argento going for something as middle-brow as A Prophet (this year's Babel?). It may get a smaller prize (there's that Screenplay award, perhaps?) in deference to the more dubious members of the jury.
He hasn't made anything genuinely great in years and they've given it a 2nd rate slot - only one screening, in the afternoon - so it seems token. I may, of course, be wrong.
Nothing wrote:The Arnold sounds abominable, truly - even worse than anticipated. Kitchen sink handheld realism (could anything be more tired?) combined with a moralist narrative about "paedophila" (the correct term, in fact, is ephebophilia and, in many other European countries, the relationship depicted would be perfectly legal). Of course the press is favourable - this is what you call croneyism. Who wants to see this and why?
Sounds as though you haven't seen Wasp, without letting that stop you from being dismissive. Have you seen any of Arnold's work, or are your opinions just based on nothing?
I have to say that the description of Fish Tank left me somewhat less than enthusiastic. And I really disliked Red Road. But I watched Wasp for the 3rd time last night and it's a powerful, finely calibrated film. Fish Tank is situated in the same milieu and apparently employs a similar style, so I'm hopeful on her new release.
Wasp is included on the Red Road dvd and as part of the Cinema 16: World Short Films. I first watched it online, so it is probably still www available.
Lemmy Caution wrote:Sounds as though you haven't seen Wasp, without letting that stop you from being dismissive.
Oh come on - being dismissive is Nothing's whole schtick round these parts: I shouldn't be at all surprised if he's had collagen treatment to make his lip curl more effectively.
But I'm glad you reminded me about Wasp - I saw it for the first time a few months ago (on that Cinema 16 compilation) and was enormously impressed, so I'll certainly be up for Fish Tank. (I haven't seen Red Road).
Incidentally, how does one join this cliquey cabal of British film critics that Nothing keeps banging on about - you know, the ones who plot to give terrible films great reviews as part of a conspiracy to destroy cinema? I've asked around at screenings, but invariably get flat-out denial - but that's omertà for you.
So, A Prophet is still a front-runner, but for how long? Resnais' new one has some pretty impressive word-of-mouth and perhaps the jury will feel biased towards it because Resnais is now about 88 years old. That said, while I originally had predicted Antichrist would win the Palme d'Or, I'm now leaning towards the movie that seems to be the most promising in terms of ambition in the festival, Enter the Void, Gaspar Noé's newest film which is rumored to have been in the making for ten years. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Michael Haneke's newest, The White Ribbon, or Ming-liang Tsai's newest Visage won some kind of award, as the former is directed by an associate of Isabelle Huppert, the president of the jury this year, and the latter of which, features Jean-Pierre Leaud in another role (he had a cameo appearance in Tsai's What Time Is It There? from 2001), and this may earn the movie an obligation of sorts, considering the festival opened to the anniversary of The 400 Blows.
Oh, I'm sorry, how dare I dismiss Arnold, a hack director with no style and no vision, who re-writes her scripts on executive demand and hands final cut to her producers, whose worthless, compromised films were bullied into Competition on the back of, firstly, the departure of Paul Trijibits from the UKFC and, secondly, the 'mistake' of not placing Hunger in Competition last year (no matter that Kaufman's excellent debut was a far better choice - oh, I'm sorry, should I be dismissive of that too?). I think I have seen WASP online, actually, but it was so insignificant that it has already departed from my memory.
As for MB's denial that British and other critics collude - apart from the fact that it's so bloody obvious, that everyone has seen the critics form in huddles after the Cannes screenings, the Brits in one corner, the Americans in another, the French in another and then the Cahiers critics standing on their own, dressed in black like Columbine shooters... apart from the the fact that Derek Malcolm & others have actually written articles about this... despite the fact that the reviews they write make it so bloody obvious... beyond all of this, the fact is I have witnesses. One broadsheet critic gleefully admitted, in front of two very good friends of mine, to engaging in consensus campaigns (not all the time, of course, that would be too dull and too obvious). It makes total sense, if you think about it - forming a totality of opinion is the only way for said critics to exercise their power, to try and pretend that they are anything other than vultures preying on the carcass of a once-vibrant artform. You can probably work out who gave the game away (hint: she's a poisonous, shameless little drunk) and give her a good fragging later.
As for Fish Tank, the bottom line is that Arnold blew $4.5m on a realist film set on a London council estate without any major cast - that's OBSCENE, an OBSCENE WASTE OF MONEY, unless there's a stargate sequence in there somewhere that people aren't talking about.
Australia is a Hollywood blockbuster with high production values that at least had a chance of recouping its budget. Fish Tank is a publicly-funded excuse for art that cost 5x more than it needed to and has no chance whatsoever of recouping even 15% of it's budget. Btw, with a film like this (ie. a Cannes film from UKFC, Film Four or BBC) there is little need to discuss consensus forming, it being a given that British critics have a duty to get behind the film. Peter Bradshaw has already had to write a piece qualifying his 3/5 review of Looking for Eric.
But could it not simply be that Looking for Eric is a good film? Could it not be possible that people genuinely believe, like I do, that Ken Loach is one of the greatest living filmmakers? I'm not necessarily saying there isn't some collusion or protectionism or whatever going on, but at the same time I think you have to bee a little less paranoid and realise that some people actually might like a Ken Loach film or Arnold film, or Hunger.
Anyway, in the current economic climate, in Britain especially, I think blowing $4.5m on any type of film is about as far away from obscene as you can get. It just pales in comparison to, well, anything. Anything in the financial, political or arts world at least.
You seem to miss the point. It is not a question of whether or not the films are good. Good, bad or indifferent, they would be received in the same manner. Eg. Name me one film financed by the British establishment (UKFC, BBC, Film Four) that premiered at a major festival in the past ten years and received a one or two-star review from a mainstream British journalist.
With regards to the budget of Fish Tank, on it's own terms it IS obscene. From all descriptions, the film should not have costs any more than $2m - and could quite easily have been realised for under $1m. Now imagine that UKFC / BBC had taken a proportion of that budget and given it to Terence Davies. Case fucking closed.
Last edited by Nothing on Fri May 22, 2009 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
I honestly wouldn't know. But I'd be gob-smacked if the Daily Mail hadn't given such a film a 1/2 star review in that space of time. How about The Wind that Shakes the Barley? I'd be astonished if that got unanimously favourable reviews. Didn't one guy even trash it without even having seen it?
Nothing wrote: It makes total sense, if you think about it - forming a totality of opinion is the only way for said critics to exercise their power, to try and pretend that they are anything other than vultures preying on the carcass of a once-vibrant artform. You can probably work out who gave the game away (hint: she's a poisonous, shameless little drunk) and give her a good fragging later.
Forming a totality of opinion? Astounding. I thought such things only happened in fiction.
Edit: I see you've edited your post, but luckily I have retrieved this exceptional example of self-righteous anger from the aether.
Chris Tookey of the Daily Mail certainly gave Wind That Shakes the Barley a bad review (3/10 on his website). He often makes very scathing remarks (similar to Nothing's) about films 'financed by the British establishment', especially lottery-funded films. That pretty much seems to be his job, actually. I don't see most of these films so can't really comment on their quality, but I thought WTSTB was fantastic. I remember Bradshaw's review of that film (3/5) was very defensive, though.
Apologies, I should have been more specific: a journalist from a mainstream publication with centrist ideology, ie. publications that are sympathetic to the BBC, Channel Four and the government. Of course the Daily Mail - a far-right tabloid - is going to be against most anything the above organisations do (for equally ideological reasons)... However, the opinion and readership of the Daily Mail (and The Sun) are completely irrelevant to the successful launch of an arthouse film in the United Kingdom.
Peter Bradshaw keeps coming up, incidentally, because he is the most independent-minded of above crowd, the most resistant to peer pressure. Within limits, of course - he still won't sink below a 3.
In any case, has anyone yet spotted a review of Enter the Void?
:-k
