criterionforum.org

Is it really a lifetime award or just a random special prize? Special Prize sounds like "Hey, we can't give anything to your last film, come on make another one"

I think it's interesting that a film widely decried for being misogynist gets rewarded for Best Actress-- it's obvious that the jury was trying to make a point here =D>

Hope that equals good distribution for the Haneke. Anyone curious about why IB won for actor?

Fierias wrote: Jury Prize - Fish Tank (Arnold) and Thirst (Park)

Fixed.

knives wrote:Hope that equals good distribution for the Haneke. Anyone curious about why IB won for actor?

Did he speak French in the film?

Saturnome wrote:Is it really a lifetime award or just a random special prize? Special Prize sounds like "Hey, we can't give anything to your last film, come on make another one"

I don't speak french, but I watched the telecast and they mentioned Hiroshima mon amour and Marienbad, as well as one or two other early films, before they announced the award, which sounds like honoring his career accomplishments to me. And, honestly, if you make a film that gets near-universal praise and it still loses to Park Chan-wook, that hardly says 'come on make another one," but more "Please stop trying, you're not going to win here."

knives wrote:Hope that equals good distribution for the Haneke. Anyone curious about why IB won for actor?

Well, it's gotten picked up by Sony Pictures Classics, so I'm guessing they'll get it out pretty soon.

Fierias wrote:And, honestly, if you make a film that gets near-universal praise and it still loses to Park Chan-wook, that hardly says 'come on make another one," but more "Please stop trying, you're not going to win here."

Why the hate on Park? Thirst seems to have been flying under the radar a bit, but I've not seen anything but positive reviews. And Park is a former Grand Prix winner (Oldboy.) Personally, I'm a big fan of his work, and I can't wait to see Thirst.

Cinetwist wrote: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.

Well, I have the rather major advantage of actually having seen Looking For Eric, and can therefore confirm at first hand that you really do have to be a terminal sourpuss not to laugh heartily on several occasions and emerge from it with a pretty broad grin - I'd be very interested to see how it does at the box office, because it has real potential to be Loach's biggest word-of-mouth UK hit in years.

The reviews I've read all seem to be much of a muchness - a very solid three out of five stars, excellent performances from the leads (especially Steve Evets), Cantona a terrific sport, but a bit too Loach-by-numbers in terms of structure, style and narrative content. I'd be very interested to see if anyone could convincingly take a radically different line without polemically ignoring the totality of the film and focusing excessively on a particular element that one either liked or took passionate exception to (i.e. the Armond White/Nothing approach, which is usually very entertaining to read but often ends up saying more about the writer's hangups than anything particularly useful about the film).

Incidentally, my own review was written and filed several days before the world premiere, without sight of anyone else's take on the film (either printed or verbal) - and yet it still managed to be squarely in line with the consensus. And I'm not the least bit surprised it didn't win anything, though I can equally easily see why what is by far Loach's most "French" film was given a Cannes competition showcase!

Shane Danielsen's talkback response to Mike D'Angelo's AV Cannes reports:

According to Danielsen, the jury was "Unusually troubled, apparently, with president Isabelle Huppert riding roughshod over everyone, and James Grey reportedly calling her a "fascist bitch" in their final meeting.

Unbelievably, the word going around is it's the Von Trier. Who IS still here - he was doing interviews yesterday and this morning. And he's not exactly the kind of guy to hang around a moment longer than he has to ...

then his post after the ceremony:

Sadly, the rumoured upset did not come to pass – though Huppert reportedly remained 'Antichrist's biggest champion on a bitterly divided and fractious jury. Who, as they came onstage, looked either funereal (Lee Chang-Dong, Hanif Kureishi), grimly determined (Nuri Bilge Ceylan) or just plain pissed-off (James Gray). A pity Von Trier didn't win, though. If nothing else, I would have enjoyed watching the ensuing riot.

Happiest moment of the awards: a surge of national pride when Warwick Thornton won the Camera d'Or for 'Samson and Delilah'. Good on you, mate: you deserve it.

Biggest injustice: Briliante Mendoza being named Best Director -- a decision that rightly inspired a barrage of jeers among the critics watching in the Debussy. To call this talentless bum a better director than Jane Campion, Marco Bellocchio, Ken Loach or Pedro Almodovar (to name just four who went unrewarded) is not just inexplicable: it's insulting.

Biggest missed opportunity: I was rather hoping that Charlotte Gainsbourg, accepting for 'Antichrist', would say,

Spoiler

"You like my clitoris! You really like it!

Makes you wish you could have been a fly on the wall in the Jury room

Jonathan Romney's Cannes summary in the Independent.

(The Romney piece includes spoilers for Noe's Enter The Void)

Please spoiler your Sally Field joke

Oh well, you win some, you lose some.... Gainsbourg I should have guessed... I went to bed believing that Haneke was going to win it, following the FIPRESCI and other awards, but it didn't seem sporting to edit my post... And I still have very little interest in seeing Das Weisse Band. Best Director to Brilliante Mendoza, though - a brilliant choice that I never would have predicted, I'll give them props for that. =D> Still -

"Croneyism Reigns."

(sorry, couldn't resist)

At the risk of getting it all wrong again, I'll make a guess that Das Weisse Band & Antichrist were chosen by Huppert; Kinatay comes from Celan + Huppert; Inglourious Basterds comes from Grey + Huppert; A Prophet was the film that the majority of the jury favoured, but Huppert rightly told them to go stick it; Thirst is a sop to Argento + the Korean, Fish Tank a sop to Kureshi (doing good mother beeb's work) and Spring Fever... who knows. In short, it seems that things would have been a lot worse without Huppert on the Jury.

Nothing wrote:Best Director to Brilliante Mendoza, though, I'll give them props for that; a brilliant choice that I never would have predicted

Are you serious?

That's a fucking spit in the eye!

From all reports it sounds like Mendoza has done what all South East Asian directors should be doing: ie. he has bravely addressed the heinous socio-political reality within his own country. Endemic corruption, rampant materialism, deep-seated inequality, ingrained misogyny. Whether or not the film is any good, Mendoza, following in the footsteps of Lino Brocka, at least gets past first base. How apt that the bourgeois critics don't like the taste.

Now compare this to Tsai Ming-Liang / Pen-ek Ratangarung's typically dishonest, elitist, head-in-the-sand, court jester approach in Visage / Nymph. It is not for nothing that Kinatay is that rarest of South-East Asian breeds: a film NOT sold by Fortissimo.

Nothing wrote:Thirst is a sop to Argento + the Korean,

You can come up with everyone else's name, but Lee Chang-dong is reduced to "the Korean?"
I give up.

Now compare this to Tsai Ming-Liang / Pen-ek Ratangarung's typically dishonest, elitist, head-in-the-sand, court jester approach in Visage / Nymph. It is not for nothing that Kinatay is that rarest of South-East Asian breeds: a film NOT sold by Fortissimo

I haven't seen Visage and Nymph, for obvious reasons. Looking forward to watching them.

Have you seen any Tsai Ming-Liang films? Your sweeping statement smacks of someone who just doesn't like these filmmakers, and probably hasn't viewed many of their films. If you have viewed their films, especially, Tsai Ming-Liangs', you obviously missed all the subtext and social commentary.

Nothing wrote:Now compare this to Tsai Ming-Liang / Pen-ek Ratangarung's typically dishonest, elitist, head-in-the-sand, court jester approach in Visage / Nymph. It is not for nothing that Kinatay is that rarest of South-East Asian breeds: a film NOT sold by Fortissimo.

My first thought upon reading these sentences, was that I almost wish Grimfarrow still posted on this forum, just to see him and Nothing tumble into an endless abyss of infighting, like Gandalf and the fucking Balrog.

Lulz. Cannes awards have been shite and "whatever" for at least 15 years. There was a time when (a small number) of (semi-) normal people went to Cannes winners when they got a theatrical release. Those days=over. Other than Haneke and maybe v. Trier, will anyone give a f€ck about any of these award winners in 5, let alone 50, years? The answer is noe. Sad.grim.pathetic. And quite amusing.

Didn't Grimfarrow die in a ladyboy orgy last month?

...

Nothing wrote:From all reports it sounds like Mendoza has done what all South East Asian directors should be doing: ie. he has bravely addressed the heinous socio-political reality within his own country. Endemic corruption, rampant materialism, deep-seated inequality, ingrained misogyny. Whether or not the film is any good, Mendoza, following in the footsteps of Lino Brocka, at least gets past first base.

Good intentions do not make good directors.

[quote=""membrillo""]

Nothing wrote:From all reports it sounds like Mendoza has done what all South East Asian directors should be doing: ie. he has bravely addressed the heinous socio-political reality within his own country. Endemic corruption, rampant materialism, deep-seated inequality, ingrained misogyny. Whether or not the film is any good, Mendoza, following in the footsteps of Lino Brocka, at least gets past first base.

Good intentions do not make good directors.[/quote]
But a Prix de la mise en scène award probably does.

james wrote:But a Prix de la mise en scène award probably does.

Sure, Christian-Jacque won the same award (over Luis Buñuel, Vittorio de Sica, William Wyler, Vincente Minnelli, and Elia Kazan) for Fanfan la tulipe and just look at the high regard for him.

Matt wrote:

james wrote:But a Prix de la mise en scène award probably does.

Sure, Christian-Jacque won the same award (over Luis Buñuel, Vittorio de Sica, William Wyler, Vincente Minnelli, and Elia Kazan) for Fanfan la tulipe and just look at the high regard for him.

Well, bad? I mean, it's not like Mendoza is Kevin Smith.

Matt wrote:

james wrote:But a Prix de la mise en scène award probably does.

Sure, Christian-Jacque won the same award (over Luis Buñuel, Vittorio de Sica, William Wyler, Vincente Minnelli, and Elia Kazan) for Fanfan la tulipe and just look at the high regard for him.

C'mon, now, the greatest award available to a filmmaker is a criterion spine number. [-X