criterionforum.org

knives wrote:Okay so no worse than a Riefenstahl or Mizoguchi.

Yeah, you're right.
War crimes. Why did I even bother mentioning them? [/sarcasm]

If it makes you feel any better, I think Underground is trash on purely aesthetic terms as well.

I don't see any war crimes mentioned in what you said. What did he do that was worse than the two people I mentioned?

knives wrote:I don't see any war crimes mentioned in what you said. What did he do that was worse than the two people I mentioned?

I'm not saying that he actually committed any war crimes. He's a director, not a soldier. I'm saying that his films endorse and celebrate those who have committed war crimes, while at the same time actively attempting to hide the existence of the latter, and slandering those who were killed. As for whether he's done anything "worse" than Mizoguchi or Riefenstahl, I don't know. I'm not even sure what you're referring to in Mizoguchi's case.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your comment about Leni and Mizo seems to imply that the artistic value of their work overwhelms any possible objection one could have to its political or ideological content? I have strong objections to this idea, but would rather not open that can of worms until I'm certain that that is indeed what you're saying.

P.S. Dina Iordanova's "Kusturica's Underground: Historical Allegory or Propoganda?" is a good primer on the scandal surrounding the film, if you can find it.

I am indeed not saying that. In fact I couldn't in Mizoguchi's case since I find him to be a no talent. Rather I'm just saying that with understanding of the situation around their propaganda people are still willing to appreciate the other parts. Assuming that there are positive things to say about Kusturica, which I assume is possible with the Cannes win, I wouldn't deny somebody that pleasure as long as they equally appreciate what is wrong about the content. To put things in as simple terms as I can come up with to avoid confusion if people can take pleasure in those films taking pleasure in similar modern films should be just as acceptable.

I actually think we are agreeing with each other somewhat since I too find going back to the original point that the sort of propaganda that Kusturica (one your word at least) is working in is far worse than von Trier's jackass statement. There's no way that Cannes can hold moral ground when it is willing to host legitimately worrisome people in the festival. In all I was trying to convey is that the level of bad that I have come to understand Kusturica has performed is on the same level as a Riefenstahl or Mizoguchi. That isn't to excuse any of the three or similar directors, but it is not on the same level of committing the war crimes themselves. At worst it's a horrifying allowance which while bad is a separate thing.

Whilst one has to be careful not to stray beyond the proven facts, some would say that Kusturica's indiscretions go beyond the mere expression of opinion, in the sense that during the Bosnian War he is known to have been on good terms with Jovica Stanisic, presently on trial for war crimes, whilst some have suggested relationships even higher up. Of course, this is not to suggest that he ever 'pulled the trigger', or witnessed any war crimes, but at what point does camaraderie become collaboration? In more recent times, he has supported Serb nationalist parties and campaigned against the independence of Kosovo, so his far-right politics are certainly not in doubt.

Nb. Kusturica was actually chased out of a film festival in Turkey last year (by the general public, not the festival staff).

Knives, please drop comparing Mizoguchi to Leni.... i'm guessing you've not seen his propaganda films which you'll find that anyone making films in Japan at the time had to make; I suggest you do some reading on the films in question, and their reception, before comparing any of them to Triumph of the Will.

Peacock wrote:Knives, please drop comparing Mizoguchi to Leni.... i'm guessing you've not seen his propaganda films which you'll find that anyone making films in Japan at the time had to make; I suggest you do some reading on the films in question, and their reception, before comparing any of them to Triumph of the Will.

I'm genuinely fascinated by the dismissal of Mizoguchi's entire career as the work of a "no talent" - and would like to know what it's based on, and how many of his films that Knives has actually seen in order to have that kind of confidence. I'm far from a Mizoguchi expert, but I'd have a hard time claiming that the man who made Sansho Dayu was a hack.

And yes, you're absolutely right - all Japanese filmmakers had to make propaganda at that time, as it was either that or find another career (or starve). In fact I've only recently caught up with Kurosawa's efforts in that department (The Most Beautiful and Sanshiro Sugata Part II), and they're mostly pretty dreadful - in no way indicative of either their maker's talent or his own personal political position.

Anyway, getting back on topic, a friend of mine has just seen the Sorrentino and claims that it's a dead cert for the Palme d'Or. I'm taking that with a very large pinch of salt, but I thought I'd throw it out anyway.

Wow, I'd be massively surprised if that were indeed true, the trailer/clip makes the film look dreadful.

A bit of gossip from Sight and Sound.

Outside the Palais Stephanie on Wednesday, I ran into a member of the Official Competition jury. The person – who, bien sûr, will remain anonymous – asked me how I was. “Still shivering from the Malick,” I replied; “Me too!” responded the juror enthusiastically (before adding the obligatory “Oops! I should keep my mouth shut” expression). Plugging away, I asked Mr/Mrs Juror what the chances are of The Tree of Life winning something. The answer was not promising: “It’s going to be difficult.”

For fun, my predictions:

Palme D'Or: Le Havre + Tree of Life
Best Director: Pedro Almodovar (though it'd be nice if it went to Lynne Ramsay)
Special Prize of the Jury: The Artist
Best Actor: maybe Antonio Banderas
Best Actress: Tilda Swinton

OK, if we're guessing, I'll go with.

Palme D'Or: Le Havre or Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
Best Director: Terrence Malick
Grand Prix: The Skin I live in or The Kid with a Bike
Jury Prize: The Artist.

The Zvyagintsev sounds very good and looks poised to win something in Un Certain Regard.

Two more films to go before final predictions, but here be The Troll's latest odds:

Le Havre 2/1
The Artist 5/2
Habemus Papam 4/1
This Must Be the Place 5/1
The Skin I Live In 5/1
The Kid with a Bike 5/1
Tree of Life 6/1
Polisse 7/1
Drive 8/1
Footnote 10/1
We Need to Talk About Kevin 10/1
Hanezu 12/1
The Source 15/1
Michael 15/1
Once Upon a Time in Anatolia 20/1
Sleeping Beauty 20/1
Melancholia 30/1
Ichimei 50/1
House of Tolerance 100/1
Pater 100/1

Nb. I can see why everyone is going towards Le Havre, and I'm now leaning there too, as it is the obvious consensus choice, barring a split in the award between The Artist & Tree - actor driven and palatable to the mainstream, but acceptable to the arthouse set, who can probably be satiated with the idea of Kaurismaki winning his first Palme - even if individual members might personally prefer Tree of Life or Once Upon a Time in Anatolia. Habemus Papam is another strong consensus option, and a soft-pedal look at the Holy See may strike a chord with De Niro. The Dardennes are always a good consensus choice, but that's probably a Palme too far.

knives wrote:I am indeed not saying that. In fact I couldn't in Mizoguchi's case since I find him to be a no talent.

Could you elaborate (in the official Mizoguchi thread?)

shot in the dark guesses.

Palme D'Or: Le Havre
Best Director: Ceylan
Special Prize of the Jury: The Artist
Best Actor: The Kid from Kid with a Bike (De Niro will say: "I like that kid" in his most Goodfellas voice)
Best Actress: Kirsten Dunst (this will be the bone they toss Melancholia and she will feel much better about her embarrassing press conference)
Screenplay: The Skin I Live In
Technical Grand Prize: Tree of Life

Reviews for Drive seem to be near-universally positive. Here's the Guardian's take.

Plus Peter Bradshaw's written roundup

Michael Kerpan wrote:

knives wrote:I am indeed not saying that. In fact I couldn't in Mizoguchi's case since I find him to be a no talent.

Could you elaborate (in the official Mizoguchi thread?)

\Okay, it was a stupidly large statement to make anyways.

Finch wrote:Reviews for Drive seem to be near-universally positive. Here's the Guardian's take.

I've seen plenty of less than positive reviews reviews for Drive.

Geoff Andrew wrote:Utterly derivative LA neo-noir. Think Walter Hill and Michael Mann, but not as good

Henry Barnes wrote:Drive would have struggled in last year's competition, let alone this. Very stylish. Very violent. Very empty.

Derek Malcolm wrote:The result is a film that may please and horrify his fans at the same time. But not a very convincing one to be displayed among the rarities in the Cannes competition.

Finch wrote:Plus Peter Bradshaw's written roundup

The point is that this giggling prankster of the cinema rarely "means" anything: all too often – though not always – the movies themselves are japes and stunts. I have long suspected that, despite his claim to be suffering from depression, what this talented man actually has is limelight addiction, and depression is a periodic symptom of not getting his fix. And it could be that Von Trier was also suffering from some variation on "Cannes madness", which can afflict everyone out here from the grandest auteur to the humblest hack. The sun, the parties, the rosé, the absence of spouses and children ... on this annual bacchanal-pilgrimage to the south of France, people can get overexcited. Generally, there's a "what happens in Cannes, stays in Cannes" rule. But not if you've done something silly in front of the world's press...

While Bradshaw is taking the holier than thou approach here, he does hit on something in this sentence. I'd love it if Lars von Trier ever adapted J.G. Ballard's book about maurauding gangs of well to do hypocrites indulging in a spot of ultraviolence inflicted on the local population before retiring back to their gated communities - Super-Cannes. It would be the perfect way of getting into the conflicting feelings of love and hate that he appears to have towards festival promotional duties (As well as being a nicely pointed poison pen letter to the Festival!)

When do the winners get announced?

I *think* it's tomorrow night.

"Long and dull." seems to be the common refrain on twitter, re: Once Upon a Time in Anatolia. I can't say that I'm surprised, nor does it deters my desire to see the film. Chances of it being a serious contender for the palm seems remote.

Finch wrote:Reviews for Drive seem to be near-universally positive. Here's the Guardian's take.

Plus Peter Bradshaw's written roundup

sounds fantastic.

What was the overall consensus about Almodovar's The Skin I Live In?

Kellen wrote:What was the overall consensus about Almodovar's The Skin I Live In?

I read there were filmgoers fleeing due to some aggressively violent and disturbing content. The hometown crowd for the most part (the ones who stayed in the theater) gave Almodovar a five minute standing ovation for the adaptation. Critics have also fallen in love with the upsetting film and are placing it in contention for the highest Cannes honor, the Palme d'or.