criterionforum.org

Hong's Ha Ha Ha wins Un certain regarde:

http://www.indiewire.com/article/hong_s ... in_regard/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr Finch wrote:Slant on Day 10, including a mixed review for Outside The Law:

http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2010 ... more-13288" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He nails the problem I've had with the two Kornel Mundruczó films I've seen to date:

Mundruczó's visuals don't even really help, ultimately, since their sophistication only serves to draw even more attention to the paucity of his thought. I think Mundruczó could potentially direct a terrific film, but I'm certain that he'll never write one.

...and I agree 100% with his assessment of Mundruczó's Delta, so I suspect he's right about this one too.

It's pretentious, Gothic-tinged, and more than a little clunky. The same could be said of Mundruczó's 2008 Cannes entry Delta, which was so lugubrious as to almost be an unintentional parody of humorless European art films.

Kirkinson wrote:

Gropius wrote:Although I defer to your knowledge of the Thai political situation, isn't Apichatpong his surname?

Nope.

Chuck Stephens sets us straight in the comments section here.

John Cope wrote:Chuck Stephens sets us straight in the comments section here.

Ah - that would be why I'd seen the likes of Tony Rayns refer to him as Apichatpong. Somewhat confusing stuff. Still, I agree with those who find the 'Joe' nickname annoyingly cute.

Yes, Khun Apichatpong would be the polite formal way to address him in public. P'Joei is the informal, usually reserved for friends and acquaitances. But Weerasethakul is still his family name, and I used it correctly in reference to an international film festival on an international forum.

Final report and award predictions from Slant

http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2010 ... edictions/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FIPRESCI awards:

Competition - ”Tournée”, Mathieu Amalric (France)
Un Certain Regard - ”Pál Adrienn”, Ágnes Kocsis (Hungary)
Quinzaine des Réalisateurs - ”Todos vós sodes capitáns”, Oliver Laxe (Spain)

(Edited to add:)

Ecumenical Jury Prize - ”Of Gods and Men”, with "commendations" for ”Another Year” and ”Poetry”.

MUBI link

Surprised Amalric won that award based on the things I've heard.

Palme d'Or: "Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives"
Grand Prix: "Of Gods and Men"
Best Actor (tie): Javier Bardem, "Biutiful" and Elio Germano, "La Nostra Vita"
Best Actress: Juliette Binoche, "Certified Copy"
Best Screenplay: Lee Chang-Dong, "Poetry"
Best Director: Mathieu Amalric, "Tournée"
Jury Prize: "A Screaming Man"
Camera d'Or: "Leap Year"

Fiery Angel wrote:Best Director: Mathieu Amalric, "Tournée"

And let's not forget:

QUEER PALM AWARD: “Kaboom,” directed by Gregg Araki

Looks like Nothing's fears came true then. Interesting. Well, regardless of arguments over the political implications, at least they went for something aesthetically distinctive.

This must be hugely disappointing for Mike Leigh. Not even Lesley Manville for Best Actress. Still, I imagine most critics will be very pleased with the jury's decisions (especially the Palme D'Or winner for Weerathesakul, richly deserved by all accounts), compared with the headscratching following some of last year's awards (best script for Thirst? and Gainsbourg inexplicably winning ahead of Cornish etc).

Has a US distribution deal been signed yet for UNCLE BOONMEE? I can't find anything, but I imagine this will greatly increase its chances for wider theatrical play here. On the other hand, this is probably as uncommerical a film - at least by US standards - to win the Palme in some time.

Congrats to AW. From the sounds of it, his film was the best by some distance this year, so kudos to the jury for not selecting a safer option.

I would also like to applaud the AW selection. Although as an Art Institute of Chicago member I feel at least partially responsible for his success. This will be the first Palm d'Or winner I'll be anxiously waiting for since I started watching art house cinema. Although 1997 would have been an exciting year for me if I were paying attention...

I still can't believe this jury managed such courageous and perceptive choices (and no that's not designed to irritate Nothing though it invariably will). The Binoche win alone is stunning and wonderful. Maybe this will go some ways toward repairing Burton's rep with many wary cineastes.

In other news, expect the British press to be less than happy (still, I'm actually kind of thrilled that Leigh got shut out; not just because I don't generally respond to his stuff but also because it felt so tailor made to resonate with a jury like this one).

There is, of course, a perverse irony to be had in culling any satisfaction from championing films sight unseen, but that doesn't go unnoted and I think with some of these people we can be relatively secure with their reps and the press we have received.

Mr Finch wrote:I imagine most critics will be very pleased with the jury's decisions (especially the Palme D'Or winner for Weerathesakul)

There was very little to compete with, I'll give you/him/them/it that (if only Malick had been a little more giving...). Still, the Leigh and the Beauvois were the favourites with most mainstream critics, whereas the Weerasethakul has generally been attracting the cultish fanboy contingent (and, of course, Burton is the ultimate politically-clueless American fanboy nerd - one of the reasons I was able to predict the award correctly).

The horrible irony, of course, as John predicted a number of days ago, is that this has been awarded, at least in part, for political reasons (the Jury Prize for the Chaddian film is surely confirmation of the air-headed phony-liberal bias at work) - by people who have no clue whatsoever about the actual political situation, and no clue as to where AW's sympathies actually lie in regards to that situation. I wonder how they would feel, Del Toro in particular, if someone actually took the time to sit them down and talk them through it... Still, ultimately, the fault must lie with the festival - the film should have been removed from contention the moment the army started firing live ammunition.

heredity4me wrote:as an Art Institute of Chicago member I feel at least partially responsible for his success.

In America, I believe the supporters of terrorism are themselves considered to be terrorists (no?). Does it not follow that, as a supporter of fascist propaganda, you are yourself a fascist?*

* note to Mr. Sausage: this is not an insult, but a fair and logical inquiry, based on the facts.

Nothing wrote: I wonder how they would feel, Del Toro in particular, if someone actually took the time to sit them down and talk them through it...

AW in interview (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/ ... lobal-home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;): "When we formed the “Free Thai Cinema” movement I had to learn how the government worked, and getting to know the system you find the ugliness inside. And when you look at the people in Nabua you see they don’t have the same privilege as the middle-class city people. Because of the system, there’s such a big gap between rich and poor. I’m glad people have spoken up, even though there’s violence. It’s time for change."

I look forward to the explanation of how that's a fascist apologia.

Finding it kind of annoying how every year someone complains that the Palme d'Or was only awarded because of "this" or "that".

Damp squib year nevertheless...

Nothing wrote:Still, ultimately, the fault must lie with the festival - the film should have been removed from contention the moment the army started firing live ammunition.

If eligibility depended on the avoidance of bloodshed, repression or war crimes by the government of the film's country of origin, then there would never be an American film in competition (or British, Chinese, etc.). The situation in Thailand is simply more conspicuous because the violence has been visited on the local population, rather than a foreign one.

John Cope wrote: Maybe this will go some ways toward repairing Burton's rep with many wary cineastes.

If cineastes start favoring emotionally uninvolving spectacle over ideas then you'd right.

I think most cineastes' problem with Burton isn't his taste in film but the films that he, you know, makes.

This main line this year appears to have been underwhelming at best but at least we'll always have the surprisingly strong 'uncertain regard' - the Hong Sang-soo, Aurora and of course Film Socialisme sound great (I wonder if a British company might actually pick up a Hong Sang-soo film for distribution this time around? Or at least some of his back catalogue - hint,hint!)

Plus the Lodge Kerrigan film sounds interesting as well (Review and interview)