59th Cannes Film Festival

[Noir of the Night]

Does anyone know if it's going to be playing in Ireland soon? I'm going there in a little under two weeks.

[ellipsis7]

I think it is slated for General Release in Ireland for sometime in June...

[Noir of the Night]

Cool, I'll have to see if I can go see it.

Edit: Never mind, it's opening a few weeks after I'll be there.

[Anonymous]

The question asked by Antoine Doinel was:

predictions on the Palme D'Or?

The Best Director award is traditionally a sop to the critically popular film of the festival that the Jury nevertheless do not wish to award with anything serious. Babel would really be an obvious choice. Similarly, the Camera d'Or is selected by an entirely different Jury and they would be VERY reluctant to give it to the only first feature actually getting the exposure of being In Competition (compared to the twenty or so other first features that are competing in the parallel sections). Sensing this, the main jury would likewise be quite likely to give Red Road 3rd prize if they felt is deserved an award.

But you are right. I'm pissed that an idiot or two (Jackson, Roth, Bonham Carter?) stole the laurels from Flandres + I'd have a load more money in my pocket if it had gone the extra mile...

[Noir of the Night]

Ok, maybe I went above and beyond what Doinel actually asked, but the point remains that my prediction was actually correct, and yours was not. It doesn't really matter though.

[Noir of the Night]

The question asked by Antoine Doinel was:

predictions on the Palme D'Or?

But you are right. I'm pissed that an idiot or two (guessing Samuel L Jackson) stole the laurels from Flandres + I'd have a load more money in my pocket if it had gone the extra mile...

See, this is what annoys me. I saw your post before you edited it, and you just had to edit it in order to change it so that you could say Samuel L. Jackson is an idiot. Of course, he's seen the films and you haven't, but clearly that doesn't matter!

Edit: And now you've decided you had to add Tim Roth, for no discernible reason. Have you seen The War Zone?

[Alyosha]

Can we spot a trend here with Palm d'Or:s to left wing and/or social realist directors?

2003: Elephant
2004: Fahrenheit 9/11
2005: L'Enfant
2006: The Wind That Shakes the Barley

I predict that next year's Palm d'Or will continue this nice suite and go to Roy Andersson's "Du levande".

[ellipsis7]

THE WIND THAT SHAKES THE BARLEY released by Pathe, opens in UK & Ireland on 23rd June...

[Noir of the Night]

Yeah, and I'll be in Ireland around the 8th, so...

[John Cope]

Very pleased by this. I had been pulling for Loach but didn't imagine it was remotely possible. If I had predicted I would have went for Volver as did almost everyone else. Oh, and I'm also pleased by the Dumont. In spite of (or perhaps because of) his ferociously single-minded point of view I admire his work.

[Noir of the Night]

What ever happened to the story that Flandres had to be cut for violence to ensure a competition slot?

[Anonymous]

Looks like the story never came out. It's true though...

Having calmed down a bit, I guess I can't begrudge Loach this one. His eighth nomination and he's pushing 70... And, who knows, maybe the film is passable. Dumont shall have his day

[Noir of the Night]

Well okay, if it never came out, where did you hear it from? I would imagine that at this late stage it can't hurt to tell all of us.

[Grimfarrow]

The question asked by Antoine Doinel was:

predictions on the Palme D'Or?

But you are right. I'm pissed that an idiot or two (Jackson, Roth, Bonham Carter?) stole the laurels from Flandres + I'd have a load more money in my pocket if it had gone the extra mile...

My god...you say so much for someone who knows so little. The Palm d'Or winner was a UNANIMOUS decision, FYI. How do you make such bad fiction by blaming Jackson and Roth and Carter for this?

[Noir of the Night]

I also really resent your assumption that if anyone on the jury is an idiot, it has to be one of the actors.

[King of Kong]

Babel sounds promising. I enjoyed Amores Perros and I'm hoping for similar quality (I haven't seen 21 Grams yet, though). Just keeping my fingers crossed it'll do the NZ festival rounds mid-year...

[Anonymous]

Hi Grimfarrow. I suspect you are someone in the industry with an agenda. If you have an issue with any of my comments, I would suggest you put forward some sort of argument instead of throwing around cheap insults and feigning superiority. I really didn't want to get drawn into this again, but you've left me with little choice...

Wong's 'Unanimous' quote is so much spin. All it means is that the Jury reached an agreement. No-one is going to come out of the woodwork and announce their dissatisfaction with the result. However, only in a Star Trek universe would a Jury of that size and diversity have exactly the same feelings about 20 vastly different films. Before agreement is reached, there is inevitably negotiation and compromise. That's how these things work. That's how they always work. You're either naive or very cynical if you wish to pretend otherwise.

So, this year, we have two strikingly different filmmakers in 1st and 2nd position. Loach: morally and politically committed, an ultimately sympathetic view of human nature, a traditionalist focus on screenplay and performance, fairly uninterested in style or form. Dumont: apolitical and committed to exploring areas of extreme moral ambiguity, an animalistic view of human nature, experimental, formalist, uses non-professional actors as models. These two filmmakers sit at opposite ends of the cinematic spectrum - and an engaged viewer could not help but feel a significant preference for one over the other, depending on one's own world view and depending on the purpose one feels art should serve. So this 1-2 decision is surely the result of different forces within the Jury; and, yes, that makes sense if you think about the personalities involved. Would formalists like Suleiman or Martel really pick Loach as their torch bearer? Wouldn't a Loach supporter be likely to find Dumont uncommitted, opaque, inhuman?

Yes, it's guess work, but looking at the evidence (including the way all the critics have responded to the films) it's not too much of a leap to surmise that the Loach was loved by some, whilst providing an inoffensive choice for others. Dumont was probably actively disliked by one or two (hardly unlikely given the critical response to the film, no?), most likely one of the actors with a slighter grasp of cinematic form. Overall, then, the Loach won out, even if it was the more conservative of the two.

Anyway, it's all pretty meaningless, isn't it. Look at Tarkovsky's lack of a Palme d'Or... and in a few hunded years, no-one will even care who Tarkovsky is (or Dumont or Loach or any of us)...

[marty]

I have recently suspected that Grimfarrow is someone who works in the industry and has a personal agenda to vent his spleen in defense of his personal (and business?) interests.

[Noir of the Night]

I think it's pretty obvious that anyone disagreeing with ugetsu is someone from the industry with an agenda.

[Antoine Doinel]

As a buyer for an e-commerce company, I may not have the exact credentials to make the assessment I'm about to make, but I think I can be fairly safe in saying that ugetsu is blowing a lot of hot air.

[pzman84]

Hi Grimfarrow. I suspect you are someone in the industry with an agenda. If you have an issue with any of my comments, I would suggest you put forward some sort of argument instead of throwing around cheap insults and feigning superiority. I really didn't want to get drawn into this again, but you've left me with little choice...

Wong's 'Unanimous' quote is so much spin. All it means is that the Jury reached an agreement. No-one is going to come out of the woodwork and announce their dissatisfaction with the result. However, only in a Star Trek universe would a Jury of that size and diversity have exactly the same feelings about 20 vastly different films. Before agreement is reached, there is inevitably negotiation and compromise. That's how these things work. That's how they always work. You're either naive or very cynical if you wish to pretend otherwise.

So, this year, we have two strikingly different filmmakers in 1st and 2nd position. Loach: morally and politically committed, an ultimately sympathetic view of human nature, a traditionalist focus on screenplay and performance, fairly uninterested in style or form. Dumont: apolitical and committed to exploring areas of extreme moral ambiguity, an animalistic view of human nature, experimental, formalist, uses non-professional actors as models. These two filmmakers sit at opposite ends of the cinematic spectrum - and an engaged viewer could not help but feel a significant preference for one over the other, depending on one's own world view and depending on the purpose one feels art should serve. So this 1-2 decision is surely the result of different forces within the Jury; and, yes, that makes sense if you think about the personalities involved. Would formalists like Suleiman or Martel really pick Loach as their torch bearer? Wouldn't a Loach supporter be likely to find Dumont uncommitted, opaque, inhuman?

Yes, it's guess work, but looking at the evidence (including the way all the critics have responded to the films) it's not too much of a leap to surmise that the Loach was loved by some, whilst providing an inoffensive choice for others. Dumont was probably actively disliked by one or two (hardly unlikely given the critical response to the film, no?), most likely one of the actors with a slighter grasp of cinematic form. Overall, then, the Loach won out, even if it was the more conservative of the two.

Anyway, it's all pretty meaningless, isn't it. Look at Tarkovsky's lack of a Palme d'Or... and in a few hunded years, no-one will even care who Tarkovsky is (or Dumont or Loach or any of us)...

Wow. I thought I was the looney of the boards.

[Barmy]

I'm glad Loach won this as no one outside of the UK will want to see his silly widdle film. (And even within the UK the audience will be teeny tiny.)

The further Cannes slides towards irrelevance just supports the "Hollywood agenda". Remember when they let themselves be bullied into awarding that subpar Angelopoulos (a filmmaker I revere)?

Yes, I know the jury itself was largely free of cheese-eating surrender monkeys, but it's hardly surprising that the craven jury members succumbed to the prevailing atmosphere.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

This is the best Cannes thread we've had yet.

Incidentally, most of Loach's audience is on the continent, not in the UK.

[Noir of the Night]

I'm glad Loach won this as no one outside of the UK will want to see his silly widdle film. (And even within the UK the audience will be teeny tiny.)

The further Cannes slides towards irrelevance just supports the "Hollywood agenda". Remember when they let themselves be bullied into awarding that subpar Angelopoulos (a filmmaker I revere)?

Yes, I know the jury itself was largely free of cheese-eating surrender monkeys, but it's hardly surprising that the craven jury members succumbed to the prevailing atmosphere.

What are you, ugetsu?

[HerrSchreck]

Ugetsu and Barmy (and unidentified friend) explaining their posting styles in the first annual Posters Ball. [img]
(Note: this sucker is a limited edition post, coming down in 12 HRS)

EDIT: SEE ALL THE ACTION @ http://www.pukeplanet.com/images/barf.jpg