Cannes 2009

[Nothing]

But I love the way you're claiming that all three of my counter-examples are somehow exceptions that prove the rule

And I love how you're trying to claim that two such obvious exceptions, films made by legendary British arthouse directors, financed under extenuating circumstances that I have outlined in detail, are the norm. In short, you've picked the two best films that the UKFC have ever put money into, films they would have loved to reject (in the case of the Davies film it wasn't their decision; in the case of the Roeg, they dragged out the development for as long as they could, literally years, then sunk the film at the first opportunity), one of which (Puffball) failed to open at a major festival, so it doesn't meet the initial criteria I set out in the first place.

Just out of curiosity, how many similar examples will it take before you concede

What examples are these? Are you referring to all those other Nicolas Roeg, Peter Greenaway and Terence Davies movies that the UKFC have funded over the years and forgotten to tell us about?

As I say, find me a bad review of a bread-and-butter UKFC / FF / BBC festival film - Hunger, Red Road, London to Brighton, This is England, Young Adam, Bullet Boy, A Way of Life. Yes, add McDonagh's atrocity to that list, along with the excruciatingly self-satisfied Man on Wire.

There is a very distinct and obvious difference between these films and your examples. Davies, Roeg, Greenaway, even Frears, represent the old guard - directors who made their name long before the New Labour victory in 1997 and the formation of the UKFC in 2000, name directors who, whether they like it or not, the establishment has to contend with in some regard (add Leigh and Loach to that list also). The films I am citing, however, represent the British film industry as the establishment would like it to be in ten years time - younger filmmakers that the estblishment have promoted because 1/ their work is compatible with New Labour ideology; and 2/ they are willing to go along to get along, to let the executives shape the appearance and the message of their work (as I say, the UKFC New Cinema Fund takes final cut as a matter of policy, you can read this on their website).

Hunger is a slight exception - it represents the latest, cutting edge approach to 'arthouse' cinema as devised by Tessa Ross & Peter Carlton. The idea is that the producers first develop the screenplay, ensuring that it contains all the correct political and commercial beats. Having done this, they then attach an established visual artist to bring a kind of superficial visual form to the film (this appeals to the French = better festival prospects) + lend general overall credibility to the project, without the problematic ideological baggage (ie. a genuine point of view) that a real film director might bring. Next up: Sam Taylor Wood's Nowhere Boy. "I can't wait".

Of course, inevitably, you're now going to try and turn this into a matter of taste. You're going to ignore the circumstances in which these films were produced and say that, hey, everyone just happened to develop and make and like those films because they are 'good films', because they are the best films around...

...There is a kernel of truth in this. Just as filmmakers receive establishment funding subject to certain political requirements, so major national film critics receive jobs and promotions according to the same. There may therefore be a pre-disposition amongst the deeply bourgeois London critical community to prefer this kind of material. Nevertheless, pressure and lobbying still exist, just as I have my witnesses to the forming of a 'broad base of agreement' on certain releases, as discussed previously.

With Sight & Sound, I believe you've hit the nail on the head already. The initial decision comes from Nick James - "is this a film we should support?" The amount of coverage in the magazine will be based on this (ie. does it receive a feature article, does it receive film of the month, etc). The next question - does Jonathan R. or one of the other key reviewers like the film? If yes/no, and this corresponds with the magazine's line, then the review is commissioned. Otherwise, let's say they're trying to sink a film, or let's say they just don't really care, they're not going to cover it, simply dump it in the review pages, then they outsource the review to yourself or whoever (having a fair idea, you already admit, of where your taste may lie). And so the editorial line is formed.

especially London to Brighton, which seemed to me to achieve everything it set out to achieve

Guy Ritchie achieves everything he sets out to achieve - and what he's setting out to achieve is on pretty much the same level. However, I'm very far from convinced that the deeply inconsistent performances were something the filmmakers were aiming for here...

So while you often reach different conclusions from the UKFC, how does your own personal method of vetting films essentially differ from theirs, given that the actual content of the celluloid (or digital file) seems decidedly secondary in both cases?

It is primary, not secondary. As I outlined in the Hunger thread, I went into the film with an open mind, but it constantly exudes McQueen's lack of genuine conviction / connection to the material. Red Road mightn't have been a bad little film (although aesthetically and formally dull) if it weren't for the finale, which absolutely stinks of executive inteference / pandering to the audience. You must know as well as anyone that, once you've seen a fair proportion of a filmmaker's work, that you have a fair idea of whether you're going to like their next film or not. You're probably not going to seek out Uwe Boll's latest, to take an easy example... And with these films that we're talking about, the 'creative executives' behind the films are the driving creative force, it is their voice that I hear the clearest and it is a voice I'd happily never have to listen to again...

A film by Leigh or Loach is somewhat different. I'm not particularly partial to either director, but I would never claim that their work doesn't represent an individual voice or that there isn't a place for it. Just as there should be a place for new films from Davies, Roeg and Greenaway, as well as less established filmmakers who actually challenge prevailing ideology (even an unhomogonized film from Angela Arnold is something I wouldn't mind watching). I believe, also, that politics should always be part of the debate - and this is an area where the mainstream British critics inarguably come up short.

[thirtyframesasecond]

I actually wrote an article on the resurgence of the British art film for the Sight and Sound course, not that I got as far as writing about the critical response to them, beyond mentioning Jonathan Romney's enthusiasm for them.

I've seen Red Road, Hunger and Unrelated and wasn't knocked out by any of them and whilst I know some UK critics have praised some of these, possibly all three, I've never once thought there's a consensual patriotic cheerleading about them. I didn't care for them especially but I could see why some critics might. Helen's the most curious of the lot though, with wildly diverging opinions from UK critics.

[Cinetwist]

Nothing, just out of interest, are there any young(er) British filmmakers that you do like? Or whose work you find passable?

You're making me feel very zealous in my broad love of British film from all eras. Perhaps flat out ignoring all criticism helps! Is any filmmaker worthy? Is anyone not artistically compromised by the UKFC?

[Nothing]

Thomas Clay, Lynne Ramsey, Douglas Gordon.

Jonathan Glazer (with reservations).

Peter Strickland is promising.

Helen = =; . But anyway, that's an Irish film.

[Cinetwist]

Never heard of Clay. Would have been mortified if you hadn't said Ramsey. And am extremely surprised by the inclusion of Douglas Gordon (although I agree), after your criticsm levelled at other fine artists becoming directors. What you said about Hunger could just as easily apply to Zidane. Not that it matters to me, as I loved both films.

[Nothing]

Never heard of Clay.

Yeah, this is what I'm talking about... Two features in Cannes at the age of 29? Radical, savage, totally uncompromising work too, aesthetically and poltically rigorous, notably produced outside of any established funding structures, unquestionably the best two British films of the decade - yet (or, perhaps, accordingly) the UK press coverage I've seen, at least with regards to The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael, was both thin on the ground and resoundingly negative (foreign commentators excepted). Yet the film was hailed as a miracle in France and South Korea's premiere critic, Dohoon Kim, recently listed it as one of the ten best films of the decade period (I'm struggling to find a link). Soi Cowboy is even better, imho.

Would have been mortified if you hadn't said Ramsey.

Ratcatcher was one of the last films to slip through under the old funding structures, in 1999, just before the formation of the UKFC. Movern Callar was an entirely commercial venture, I believe (an unsuccessful one, commercially speaking, although I find it the better of the two films). And in the 7 years since then? Development hell with the UKFC, perchance..?

And am extremely surprised by the inclusion of Douglas Gordon (although I agree), after your criticsm levelled at other fine artists becoming directors. What you said about Hunger could just as easily apply to Zidane.

I'm surprised you can't see the difference between the two films (other than Zidane being financed out of France). Unlike Hunger, in which McQueen is merely illustrating - and legitimising - a dull and simplistic centre-left screenplay for Film Four, Zidane is a fully-fledged artistic concept / statement followed through from beginning to end, without commercial regard. Within it's limited scope, it somehow captures the zeitgeist of the 21st century more clearly than any other recent film I can think of, other than perhaps Michael Mann's Miami Vice.

[Cde.]

Unlike Hunger, in which McQueen is merely illustrating - and legitimising - a dull and simplistic centre-left screenplay for Film Four, Zidane is a fully-fledged artistic concept / statement followed through from beginning to end, without commercial regard. Within it's limited scope, it somehow captures the zeitgeist of the 21st century more clearly than any other recent film I can think of, other than perhaps Michael Mann's Miami Vice.

Exactly.
Zidane is truly uncompromising work. Hunger is simultaneously ideologically pandering and muddled so the complexity of its subject can be safely avoided, it follows to the dot ugly 'art' film trends trends, and behind it all one can sense the total disengagement of its director with anything outside of producing arresting tableaux (which are nonetheless ultimately prosaic).

[Cinetwist]

Ah, so Clay directed the Carmichael film. I didn't see that because the same criticisms you're levelling against Hunger were slapped onto that (art film cliches etc), as well as it's explicit content.

I'll give it a watch though. I like to know what's going on in British film, outside of the usual stuff and the genre films, which is what I find really heinous. You can't stand UKFC funded stuff. I can't stand micro budget Brit horror producers who think that's all that can and should be made. I had an e-mail from one asking me to invest in some zombie film because it was a financial cert that it'd make money due to the recent success of The Descent and Shaun of the Dead and stuff. What a riot. And there's loads of producers who have set up similar schemes, whereby you can put money into their new no-ambition horror film.

[Nothing]

the same criticisms you're levelling against Hunger were slapped onto that (art film cliches etc) as well as it's explicit content.

It's a little like what might happen if Peter Greenaway and Chris Morris banded together and shot a Ken Loach pastiche. But, at the same time, it is it's own thing, with a consistent form & style (and only two close-ups, I believe), at once darkly humourous and deadly serious, if perhaps a little heavy-handed in places. If you're concerned about the explicit content, I would recommend hanging on for Soi Cowboy - the better of the two in any case, indeed a genuine masterpiece.

You can't stand UKFC funded stuff. I can't stand micro budget Brit horror producers who think that's all that can and should be made.

Or - worse - the UKFC cashing in on the Brit horror wave = Donkey Punch (!)

I think you should invest in that zombie movie, though. Have a heart.

[Cinetwist]

I'd produce a Jess Franco movie in a heartbeat. I really would. But the people making horror films here don't have as much skill, heart or balls as he does. And considering his reputation that says something!

Anyway, I think I'd better stop talking now. This has gone way off topic.

[Antoine Doinel]

So I saw I Killed My Mother tonight, which has been garnering a lot of press here in Canada, as it picked up three awards at Cannes (including the Prix Regards Jeune). It's the directorial debut of Xavier Dolan, twenty year old child actor from Quebec, who also wrote and starred in it, and funded a good chunk of the film with money he saved from his previous acting gigs.

The film is a coming of age story of a gay teenager in Quebec, and the fractious relationship he has with his mother. The film is about as strident as you might imagine a twenty year old would make it, especially given the subject matter. However, what the film lacks in narrative strength, it makes up for with a strong visual eye. Dolan has an incredible knack for set pieces, and he does a really wonderful thing between sequences, where four still images will flash briefly on the screen, before moving on the to the next section. The tracking shots in the film show a fondness for Gus Van Sant, and there is one truly great scene that will have single mothers standing up and cheering. Overall, an uneven, but very promising debut that unfortunately stands in the shadow of C.R.A.Z.Y. which handled similar subject matter so much better.

[yoshimori]

...
Best Screenplay - Spring Fever (Lou)
...

Coming 8.17 from Strand. No blu-ray.

My favorite Lou so far. Ain't no Antichrist, but less frustrating for me than White Ribbon or Thirst or A Prophet or some of the other Cannes awardees.