criterionforum.org

Have you seen Spider-Man 3, for that matter?

An extra 10-15 minutes! Big WHOOPY-DOO!!

Actually, if it's 110 minutes, it's 25 minutes longer than the Grindhouse version, which is a substantial amount.

The thought that QT cut out the boring bits of Death Proof for the US release (I'm referring to the resulting trailer of course), and is now restoring them, troubles me.

'Boring bits,' like Ferlito's dance scene? Surely you jest.

Noir of the Night wrote:Have you seen Spider-Man 3, for that matter?

Thank you for your wisdom. I am not questioning the film, I am questioning the fact that Death Proof which has already been released in many countries and I don't care which way you or Harvey Weinstein looks at it, it is a half of a feature film, Grindhouse. You may as well just select parts of films in official selection rather than the whole.

Plenty of films appear in the official competition (Zodiac's an example from the 2007 selection) that have already opened in various countries, so I don't see what that has to do with anything. Other than that, I don't see how Spider-Man 3 or 300 have anything to do with the argument of Cannes screening "half a film" at all.

Noir of the Night wrote:I don't see how Spider-Man 3 or 300 have anything to do with the argument of Cannes screening "half a film" at all.

It would have been better to have Spiderman 3 in Official Competition as it is a full feature film.

I am questioning the fact that Death Proof which has already been released in many countries and I don't care which way you or Harvey Weinstein looks at it, it is a half of a feature film, Grindhouse. You may as well just select parts of films in official selection rather than the whole.

Actually, the title Grindhouse is two feature films for the price of one. Only when paired as Grindhouse do both films have missing reels to equate the experiences of old (and limit the running time, of course). As has been said, Grindhouse in itself is exclusive to theatres, and in most other territories and on DVD Planet Terror and Death Proof will be serparate entities without the missing reels (just as, say, Humanoids from the Deep and Piranha are separate entities outside of their 1980 double bill). The film Death Proof, running 110 minutes (a reel and a half longer, more or less, and without any trailers or bumpers or any of that), is what's premiering at Cannes (and aside from dance scene and additional bar material, we're also getting the scenes in the beginning when the girl's first gather at the apartment).

It sounds to me like you just have an axe to grind for QT.

Dylan wrote:It sounds to me like you just have an axe to grind for QT.

Nothing against Tarantino (Jackie Brown is a masterpiece and easily his best film) , more the Cannes selection committee who fawn over Hollywood stars so much that it influences their competition selection.

more the Cannes selection committe who fawn over Hollywood stars so much that it influences their competition selection.

Stating your opinion that Tarantino's nomination is suspicious/undeserved/typical of Hollywood is one thing, but saying that the 110 minute version of Death Proof (as I said: sans fake trailers and bumpers and with an additional 25 minutes than the version shown in the double bill) is half a feature film is something else.

Nothing against Tarantino

Well, in regards to that I was sort of responding to this

Why don't the selectors just give Tarantino a blowjob rather than throwing a vital entro slot just so that he can attend the festival!

and your general disdain for his nomination.

marty wrote:

Noir of the Night wrote:I don't see how Spider-Man 3 or 300 have anything to do with the argument of Cannes screening "half a film" at all.

It would have been better to have Spiderman 3 in Official Competition as it is a full feature film.

Ok, but I guess what I take issue with is your perceived disdain for Spider-Man 3 and other films like it, based on the wording of your earlier posts (maybe I'm reading it wrong, if so I apologize). I'm not saying a film like SM3 is the kind of film that would be at home in the Cannes official competition, but it doesn't deserve to be dismissed out of hand.

marty wrote:

Dylan wrote:It sounds to me like you just have an axe to grind for QT.

Nothing against Tarantino (Jackie Brown is a masterpiece and easily his best film) , more the Cannes selection committee who fawn over Hollywood stars so much that it influences their competition selection.

Really? Then how come you're not railing against Zodiac (which has also already opened in North America) or even the English-language, star-studded My Blueberry Nights?

marty wrote:Nothing against Tarantino (Jackie Brown is a masterpiece and easily his best film) , more the Cannes selection committee who fawn over Hollywood stars so much that it influences their competition selection.

I appreciate that but the logic cuts both ways. For instance, the obvious reason Assayas' new film is not in official competition is due to Maggie Cheung's presence on the jury. I'm sure the reason Ballon Rouge isn't in competition is something equally mundane. It's just unfortunate to have to wait to hear word on it, that's all.

As for Death Proof, it's an excellent film and deserves to be seen on its own terms but I remain unconvinced that the Grindhouse "experiment" was somehow arbitrary or negligible. The experience of those two films together and the way they function in dialogue with post-modern assumptions is hugely significant. Comparing it to a double bill of Piranha and Humanoids from the Deep seems to miss a crucial point. Whatever. I just hope the experience is preserved in some form for video.

The Man From London better win here, for so many different reasons. But I'm not holding out much hope, given that Michel Piccoli is the closest thing to a force for sense on the jury this year.

Pretty shameful that Korine has been relegated to Un Certain Regard.

As for this Reygadas/Zvyagintsev debate, I don't go head-over-heels for Carlos, but at least he's a filmmaker. The Return seemed like a whole lot of nothing to me - cute kids, laboured Tarkovsky references and contrived 'ambiguity'. Anyways.

The experience of those two films together and the way they function in dialogue with post-modern assumptions is hugely significant. Comparing it to a double bill of Piranha and Humanoids from the Deep seems to miss a crucial point.

My example of that old New World Pictures "horrors from the sea" double bill was meant less as a reflection of Grindhouse than serving an example to Marty of a pairing of two feature films together, and how just because they were on a double bill together doesn't necessarily mean they're one movie. It wasn't meant to be an exact reflection (afterall, that double bill wasn't deliberate since Dante and Peters made those films separately when double features were still fashionable). True, Grindhouse is a deliberate double bill, but in the end Planet Terror and Death Proof will be separate features and Grindhouse will remain an exclusive version of them only seen by those who attended the double bill, just as whatever double bill hybrid of Humanoids and Piranha is exclusive to what was seen by people 27 years ago. That's all.

By the way, any word on the new Honore? I hear Louis Garrel sings in it.

John Cope wrote:I appreciate that but the logic cuts both ways. For instance, the obvious reason Assayas' new film is not in official competition is due to Maggie Cheung's presence on the jury. I'm sure the reason Ballon Rouge isn't in competition is something equally mundane. It's just unfortunate to have to wait to hear word on it, that's all.

well then shouldn't My Blueberry Nights also not have been chosen?

Marty, I fart in your general direction.

John Cope wrote:The experience of those two films together and the way they function in dialogue with post-modern assumptions is hugely significant.

What he said.

Someone forgot that SHREK and SHREK 2 were in competition in Cannes.

I am very surprised the 3rd one isn't at least out of competition this year...

marty wrote:

Dylan wrote:It sounds to me like you just have an axe to grind for QT.

Nothing against Tarantino (Jackie Brown is a masterpiece and easily his best film) , more the Cannes selection committee who fawn over Hollywood stars so much that it influences their competition selection.

By that reasoning then I'M NOT THERE should have been in competition, since it has pound for pound more Hollywood stars.

Grimfarrow wrote:Someone forgot that SHREK and SHREK 2 were in competition in Cannes.

I am very surprised the 3rd one isn't at least out of competition this year...

Maybe it's as mediocre as the trailer makes it look.

Antoine Doinel wrote: the English-language, star-studded My Blueberry Nights?

Uh, you do know that this is a film by Wong Kar-Wai, right? Yes, there's stars in but I certainly think there's more artistic merit in it than in Tarantino's whole filmography.

sidehacker wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote: the English-language, star-studded My Blueberry Nights?

Uh, you do know that this is a film by Wong Kar-Wai, right? Yes, there's stars in but I certainly think there's more artistic merit in it than in Tarantino's whole filmography.

Yes -- I was only following marty's reasoning which seems to be if it has any connection to Hollywood whatsoever, it has no business at Cannes.

I'm not a Tarantino fan by any stretch, but I don't see any reason why Death Proof shouldn't be allowed in competition. As for My Blueberry Nights I'm quite looking forward it even though I'm very concerned the Weinsteins are going to try and force Kar-Wai to make edits to make it as broadly acceptable to North American audiences as possible.

I love how people are making assertions - that The Man from London should obviously win, for multiple reasons, or that My Blueberry Nights has an unspeakable wealth of artistic merit that puts it far and above any Tarantino movie by virtue of its director alone - when no one has seen these movies yet.

I'm interested in the fact that this year was posed to be a major year for Asian filmmaking at Cannes, and yet only three East Asian works made the competition.

Of course everyone can argue forever over which film is 'best', before and after they've been shown. But the winner is always political and there are sound political reasons why The Man From London should win; arthouse cinema is becoming increasingly marginalised and difficult to finance, especially projects that display Tarr's level of uncompromising ambition and lack of thought for the so-called 'audience'. Producer Humbert Balsan, one of the few people who could pull a project like this together, died as a result of the financial problems surrounding the film.

Btw, as a past Palme d'Or winner (unlike Wong Kar-Wai, or Bela Tarr for that matter), Tarantino is a shoo-in for the main Competition.

Nothing wrote: Btw, as a past Palme d'Or winner (unlike Wong Kar-Wai, or Bela Tarr for that matter), Tarantino is a shoo-in for the main Competition.

has Tarr ever shown at Cannes?

Werckmeister Harmonies, Section parallèle in 2000.

Anyone know if there are any websites that will sell prints of this year's poster?