Fifty years ago, the Palme d'Or winner at Cannes was Fellini's "La Dolce Vita." More every year I realize that it was the film of my lifetime. But indulge me while I list some more titles.
The other entries in the official competition included "Ballad of a Soldier," by Grigori Chukhrai; "Lady with a Dog," by Iosif Kheifits; "Home from the Hill," by Vincente Minnelli; "The Virgin Spring," by Ingmar Bergman;" "Kagi," by Kon Ichikawa; "L'Avventura," by Michelangelo Antonioni; "Le Trou," by Jacques Becker; "Never on Sunday," by Jules Dassin; "Sons and Lovers," by Jack Cardiff; "The Savage Innocents," by Nicholas Ray, and "The Young One," by Luis Bunuel.
And many more. But I am not here at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival to mourn the present and praise the past.
Cannes is still the most important annual event in the world of what some of us consider good cinema. The Official Competition here is so much better, as a group, than all the nominees for the Academy Award that it makes you want to cry. My friend Richard Corliss thought the 2009 Cannes festival was the best in its history. I fully expect this year's Cannes to show me great movies.
But we are here at the end of something and not the beginning. The traditional model we grew up with is dying. We expected to hear about new films through news from festivals, Hollywood premieres, and reviews from New York and Los Angeles, to begin with. Then the films and the reviews would fan out across the country. In my Illinois home town, I was able to see all 12 of the films listed above in 35mm, on a big screen.
Georges Simenon with Gulietta Masina and Fellini
Some few of you may be able to see several of this year's Cannes successes if you live in big cities. Others will play via Video on Demand, or stream online. They'll be on DVD. The one you will surely be able to see is the opening night film, Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood," starring Russell Crowe. That film has no business here. But remember that Cannes is an attraction as well as a festival, and all the world will goggle at photos and TV of Crowe and Cate Blanchett on the red carpet. And for a moment, this will seem once again to be the center of the world of film.
We of the critical corps will begin every day at the 8:30 a.m. press screening and see each other again three or four movies later. We will jam the press conferences. You will be able to read hundreds of thousands of Cannes reports, all with the subtext, "Man, am I happy to be here." It will be a fabulous 10 days.
Antonioni and Monica Vitti But at home, the studios have won an important victory, and will now be able to premiere their new releases on television on the same day they open in theaters. There is nothing to compel them to pre-screen them for the critics. If they don't, the result will be a mainstream cinema based entirely on advertising and marketing.
Some of those video premieres will be on ad-free cable. Some will be on cable and network outlets with advertising. Imagine seeing "Precious" the first time with commercial interruptions.
It may not get that bad. It may. In my nightmares, I imagine first-run Hollywood cinema becoming The Movie of the Week, pitched at the broadest possible audience. If box office grosses are a sad way to rate a movie's success, how much worse are opening night Nielsen ratings. I see stories pitched to safe genres: Horror, romcom, sci-fi. I see quirky pictures, what we amusingly call Art Films, disregarded.Disney has already announced it will make no more ordinary first run movies, and will focus on 3D, animation, superheroes and franchises. The studio that gave us "Down and Out in Beverly Hills," "Pretty Woman" and "Good Morning, Vietnam" wants to do so no more. The new, well-financed CBS Films says it will focus on "midstream" movies. Their second: The appalling "The Back-Up Plan." Think what that could gross in one night on TV with a good ad campaign. The stinkero word of mouth would arrive the morning after.
Cannes has just added one more film to this year's lineup, Ken Loach's "Route Irish." It's the story of an employee of a private contractor in Iraq, like Blackwater, whose friend is killed. Conventional wisdom is that Iraq War films die the box office. I guess they do. Vietnam films didn't. That's an idea for another piece. Most of the people reading this will know very well who Ken Loach is. Most other people don't know and don't care. Loach, who cares more about his films than his bank account, has just opened a YouTube channel and posted several of his movies for free. You want to start somewhere, start with "Kes."
Other directors with new films here this year include Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Abbas Kiarostami, Takeshi Kitano, Lee Chang-dong, Mike Leigh, Doug Liman, Nikita Mikhalkov, and Bertrand Tavernier. I've had a problem with Kiarostami, but I eagerly await his next one, just as I awaited David Lynch's work in years when I wasn't responding to it. There's no doubt in my mind Kiarostami is a serious artist with a fierce dedication, and whether he connects with me is not his problem, it's mine. A director who creates outside crass, dumbed-down channels is a human resource.The best film here this year will quite likely be by a director I'm unfamiliar with. That'll be all the better. I'll be there every morning to join my fellow acolytes in worship at the Temple of Cinema, also known as the Palais des Festivals. And we'll be hurrying down the rue d'Antibes for a small indie film showing in the Marketplace. This world may be dying, but not yet.
Madadayo.
Roger,
I am here for my first ever Cannes Film Festival with a group of students from the University of Georgia. This blog post gave me a similar impression of my first walk around the festival grounds yesterday. That is, a sense of nostalgia for something of which I have no memory. But I think that is the glory of cinema. It is a collective memory that allow us to tap in to vast reservoirs of emotion otherwise unavailable to us in our narrow personal experiences. I am thrilled beyond words to be here. Here's to hoping we cross paths! To shake your hand would be the greatest honor I can imagine.
Your series on Cannes eagerly awaited! Also nice to see signs of softening to Kiarostami!
Having spent the past week snooping online through the offerings to be found at various Films Festival sites, from Seattle to Edinburgh and Cannes, I was heartened to see there's still something out there and waiting to be discovered by those looking to eat more than just mainstream fare.
Case in point: Robin Hood is another Braveheart imo, and while I'm sure everyone involved did their very best, personally, I'd rather see the re-release of the UK documentary "CAMERAMAN: The Life and Work of Jack Cardiff" - which is part of the Cannes Classics program. Mind you, I worship Cameramen and Cinematographers the way others do Directors or Actors. :)
I caught a partial working clip of Mike Leigh's new film "Another Year" - so too, one for Woody Allen's "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger" which could be interesting. I'll always remember seeing his film "Manhattan" which opens with a B/W firework display; gosh! And David Thewlis as the lead in Leigh's "Naked" - whoa. He's one of those English actors I cross the street for. Ie: make an effort to see their films.
I've never been to Cannes and it's way too commercial to appeal to me now, but I'd have enjoyed being a fly on the fly, back in the day, when the Press photos appeared in B/W.
There's something extra-special about seeing movie starts shot in B/W. It's as if the absence of color had the power to somehow suspend them above the crowd and lift them to where the light was shinning just for them. And then "pause" that moment in time, forever.
I don't feel the same way about color photographs. Makes me wish more movies were shot in B/W, but that's a lament for another day. Or better still, another Ebert Club Newsletter; Marie makes a mental note to herself, scribble, scribble. :)
As for Cannes, like everything else, success will eventually crush it. Until it does, I hope you're having fun and enjoying the zoo, and get to see some good films along the way.
P.S. although anything's got to be better than that Centipede movie. Chuckle!
Oh, almost forgot..
I saw "Kick-Ass" yesterday and loved it! I get what bugged you about it though, and yes, there's excessive violence, but damn, Chloe Moretz as Hit-Girl... I was in total awe. :)
Simultaneous distribution puts critical consensus about a given film's merit (or flaws) at risk. With so many voices -- both informed and ignorant -- converging upon a film's release today, the proportion of critics' voices getting first play in the marketplace of ideas grows smaller and smaller. Not good for people who love great movies, in my opinion.
Nice Kurosawa reference! (Madayo)
A story about KES that shows how the times they are a-changin':
I have been part of an all-male Movie Night for 16 years now: The HAM Movie Night (don't ask what HAM stands for). In 1995, one of our members was returning from the Canary Islands and had to overnight in London. He caught a movie on late night British television, and raved. All he knew was that it was about a boy and a kestrel. This was pre-Google, and even before readily accessible intertubes. He continued to rave, and it set a flag in our noggins.
Serendipity intervened, and I came across an entry in Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, and we finally had a name: KES. Meanwhile, Al Gore invented the internet and our search turned online. Still no readily available version to be found. There was a reference to a VHS version on amazon.uk, but it was Not Available. In the comments section there was a reviewer from Canada who left his email. I emailed him, asking him how he happened to see it, and lo and behold, he had a VHS copy. Out of sheer kindness (duh... he was Canadian), he borrowed a VCR and dubbed a copy and sent it to me (dear Interpol: statute of limitations?). I kept it a secret, and popped it in the VCR on a movie night in 2001, claiming it was a small independent movie called JOKESTER (note the KES in the middle? Har har...) It was met with cheers and applause. It was a great movie, and the end of a 5 year search.
And now it's on Youtube, and there are no more cinematic holy grails. Which is kinda good, kinda bad, I guess. I'd still love a DVD version of Les MIserables with Jean Paul Belmondo, if there's any altruistic, resourceful souls reading this.
Hi Roger.
Glad you made it to Cannes. Enjoy the 10 days.
Yes, Iraq movies die at the box office. For a reason. That reason being that they come from only one perspective - the Holllywood left - and tell only one story - America is a decpetive war criminal. Boo. Make a movie celebrating the bravery and courage and decency on the American soldier in harm's way and it will sell plenty. Keep making "Green Zone" slander and die at the box office. Simple.
Also, I'm with Marie on Centipede. I'm buying an industrial strength scrub brush with stiff bristles to scrape Human Centipede out of my brain. I could have lived my whole life not knowing that this movie exists. The depravity of man...
I live on the outskirts of Toronto and whenever I finally get a chance to go out for a proper movie night - at a real cinema - I am invariably disappointed (appalled?) by the lack of choice available. Every theatre offers the same thing, unless I drive miles and miles away. And that same stuff rarely includes more than one film I actually want to see.
Reading your blog makes me long to be in Cannes, so maybe this year I will try to join the volunteer crew at the Toronto film festival and OD on actually interesting films! Meanwhile I read your work in between the times I'm able to make the trek into The Big Smoke. Of course even there, we're losing the arty theatres...
I'm with Marie on black and white films and photographs. Lately, I've been more and more drawn to them, and for me, I think it is definitely a feeling of time suspension. It sets them apart and creates more a world of their own for me to view. I want to be a spectator when watching stories. No 3-D, no high-definition or surround sound required.
I've known people to change their homes to be all white and completely devoid of color. Even the Morton's salt box is hidden away. While I always thought it was a little crazy, I think I now understand why they do it, and I'm getting there. Maybe if everything in the house is white and black, the color of the TV will mean something. Dunno.
*sniff*
One day, Roger, one day I will be at Cannes to offer a prayer to the great art of cinema.
Anyway, I understand your concerns for the future of the cinema with regards to artistic integrity. As a devout cinephile, one of the things that truly pisses me off is when people tell me that they don't make good films anymore. When I hear that, I curtly respond, "No. Some of the greatest films that have ever, or will ever, be made are being released RIGHT NOW! The problem is that people like you aren't going to see them!"
I remember one such instance when I grilled the offender on what movies he had seen that year. I asked him if he had seen "Transformers 2," "The Final Destination," "The Da Vinci Code," and "Jennifer's Body." Of course, he replied "yes" to every single one.
I then asked if he had seen "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call, New Orleans," "The Hurt Locker," "Precious," or "Up in the Air." I went a step further and asked him if he had even heard of them before they were nominated for Oscars. Of course, the answer was "no."
As a film lover, I constantly badger my friends to see great movies when they come out in the theaters. I even have a movie club every Saturday where I show great movies to my friends in college. Their responses are always the same. First, "That was incredible!" Second, "Why have I never heard of this film?"
I guess that as cinephiles, it is partly our job to motivate our friends to see great movies. I firmly believe that the market is there for the works of Loach, Kiarostami, and other art house directors. We just need to be aggressive about motivating people to see them.
It's just like when we are children. When we get sick, out parents make us take a big spoonful of medicine. We squirm and say that we don't want to. But eventually, are parents win and we choke it down. How great is the discovery that it is cherry-flavored. "Can I have some more?"
Madadayo, indeed, Roger. Madadayo, indeed.
Not yet!
It's nice to hear from you that you are in Cannes now despite the problem you mentioned in twitter. You will have wonderful 10 days of new movies and will give us the informations about them, very good or impressively bad(e.g. "Kinatay"). And I hope Eyjafjallajokull won't ruin the ending of this fabulous parade.
Actually, "The Back-Up Plan" was CBS Films' second release. The first, in January, was "Extraordinary Measures," a medical melodrama that would have premiered on the Lifetime network were it not without its A-list cast (Harrison Ford, Brendan Fraser, Keri Russell).
Likewise, "The Back-Up Plan" was entirely a TV-level production - look up the credits on IMDb for the director, writer, male lead and most of the supporting cast - with one A-list star in Jennifer Lopez. CBS may want to play big-time Hollywood distributor, but their thinking is still small-screen.
Am all ears so far, Rodge. I may never make Cannes (me brudder can), but I drove home from Ebertfest honestly trying to think when I'd ever had more fun, back into childhood -- and I've had lots of fun. Age 3, maybe?
I am eagerly awaiting reports on the films from Cannes. However, the real appeal to me of the existence of a festival like Cannes is not the abstract value of the existence of an event that I will never personally be able to participate in, buy the hope that some of the films will be shown will trickle down to me neck of the woods. The issue of same day television release makes that less and less likely. The beauty and the wonder is somewhat diminished on a 17 inch TV screen.
Have no clue how good his new film is, but would sure be nice if Tavernier could win the big one.
Madadayo!
Nothing is stagnant, and I know you don't expect them to be. Like the lead character in that wonderful film, the movie industry will go through its triumps and defeats. Everyone has an image in their mind about what movies should be. Those images are largely our own, or at best the images of our generation, and we don't like to see them fade into memory.
I try not to cling too tightly to that "one cat". Let's give each generation a chance to surprise us with their talent. If we can expect anything it's that whatever they come up with will not be what we expected. Yet, if worse comes to worse, and beautifully moving films become more and more rare, we can always live contentedly with our memories. They won't change or leave us but become more vivid with age. Even a very old man, falling asleep for the very last time, can find peace and contentment in youthful dreams of playing hide and seek in sun-kissed hayfields. Oh the memories... of what used to be. Are you ready to forget them? Madadayo!
Its quite very nice such brief reveiw of cannes to learn much from the older movies you named in the start it'll be very helpful in learning the art of movie watching to see the way you see but the veiws surely be different Thanks i am also waiting for some other artists who are opening their films at this festivals i hope i find them online or lets see
Roger,
I am so happy for you. (I hate the word prosthesis; I hope the term headgear will suffice) Having no unnecessary distractions during your stay there must be a real blessing and will allow your stay there to be all the more pleasant.
I thought I had seen my share of great films. However, with the exception of "La Dolce Vita," I have not seen any of the others you mentioned. They are now on my to-view list.
I hope Cannes is able to retain its integrity as a place for experiencing fine films. I have the hope that somehow this will be the case. I know little about the modern art scene and even less about fashion, but the people who live in that universe always seem to find a way. Many, I am supposing, are the very same people who prefer Cannes to all else in the world of film. In some strange way, it may even be a blessing that Disney and the others have ventured into what might be the equivalent of the comic book business. I’m not so certain any studio can serve both film and money on a sustainable basis. Now that they aren’t even trying to makes the focus all the sharper on the devout.
I hope you have a wonderful time at Cannes.
Surprised to hear the developments about TV and the movies. It's ironic, because in times when the movies are increasingly abandoning serious drama, TV -- in particular cable TV -- has picked up the slack. Many of those shows have commercial interruptions, but that's the necessary evil of the medium, and since TV is written with those commercial breaks in mind, they don't awkwardly interrupt the narrative, as they would for, as you mention, "Precious." And all such shows eventually make their way to DVD, where the commercials are no more.
"Breaking Bad" is on TV. It gets about 1.5 million viewers per week. If the same number of people bought movie tickets at $10 a pop, it would be a decent hit by most indie standards. It features a performance by lead actor Bryan Cranston that stands up against all of this decade's Best Actor Oscar winners. Maybe your dire warning wasn't all about TV, per se; I'm not sure I understand the developing TV/film business model you describe. But I'm not that worried about filmed storytelling. Be it on a television screen or a movie screen, art doesn't disappear, it migrates. All it requires is someone interested in making it and someone interested in seeing it. The result may be the loss of stature for festivals like Cannes. But far more of us subscribe to HBO or Netflix than are able to attend Cannes each year. And far more of us have cable television and can watch shows like "Breaking Bad," which I think is better than "Precious," even with commercial breaks.
Sorry to be off topic from the blog, but I just wanted to respond to your article about the American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo.
In your article, you talk about people wearing the Confederate flag at an African-American heritage celebration, or wearing a Stalin shirt on Pulaski day. Wearing shirts like those is a clear declaration of "I am against certain types of people and I want to send a message of hatred their way".
I take issue with the American flag being portrayed that way. To me, it represents freedom and justice and everything that (usually) is great about this country. In no way do I see our flag as being anti-Mexican, anti-Arab, or anti-anyone.
I am strongly against the idea of punishing someone for wearing the American flag. I am strongly for the idea of those students being punished for disturbing the peace, or spreading messages of hate. (Is there a misdemeanor version of a hate crime? Anyway...) I certainly would agree that those students should be made to sit at a lunch table with the other disruptive students.
Enjoy Cannes, I'm looking forward to reading your upcoming articles and blog entries.
Ebert: I respect our flag and my comments were not about flags but about deliberately offensive behavior in a high school.
Hi Roger,
Since you eagerly await even Lynch's movies, I would like to ask if you had a chance to see his 2006 movie Inland Empire. You didn't like Lynch's earlier work but you loved his Straight Story and Mulholland Drive so it would be interesting to hear what you think about this one.
Have a nice Cannes experience.
Roger I agree with you, but there is hope. Here in Toronto three guys just opened what they are calling the Underground Cinema downtown that will play cult movies and specialized stuff. It's first night will be this weekend and I hope to promote them through the blog world as much as possible. We need more outlets like that and I hope it is a great success.
One more thing being a script reader I was sent the script of the new Abbas Kiarostami film several months back and hated it in a way that you have hated most of his previous work, but you are right, he is still an artist to keep an eye on, even if his work doesn't connet on a personal level.
Randy:
I've said this before, so I'll keep it brief.
If a farRight group of filmmakers were to do a pro-war picture about Iran, Iraq, and/or Afghanistan, it would fail just as badly as all the anti-films have - and for the same reason.
The large majority of moviegoers today are adolescent boys of all ages and genders, with little or no interest in international geopolitics.
They go to the plex to see CGI explosions, CGI martial arts, CGI chases and crashes, and fart jokes.
A right-wing preachment on the Nobility of our Cause in the MidEast would go over like a lead balloon, just as all the left-wing preachments on the Ignobility of same have.
People - everyday people - don't go to movies for politics. They never have, and they never will.
In these times, escapism is the name of the box-office game.
Aren't you one of the ones who said that Avatar was just thinly disguised lefty agitprop? Well, OK. maybe not you specifically, but quite a few people here and elsehere did and still do. I remain, to the best of my knowledge, one of the perhaps 47 or 48 people in the world who didn't see it. I didn't see it because I wasn't interested in seeing it.
Obviously, lots of people were interested in seeing it, and so it made scads of money.
This is why films fail at the box office - not because they are disliked but because people aren't interested in seeing them.
(And there as many different reasons for that as there are people in the world.)
I suppose Cannes is changing, but as far as this years line up for Cannes, I couldn't be more excited.
The films I'm anticipating the most are; Hong-Sang Soo's Ha Ha Ha, Jia Zhangke's I Wish I Knew, Jean-Luc Godard's Film Socialisme (which I'm slightly ambivalent about), Manoel de Oliveira's O Estranho Caso de Angélica, and Apichatpong Weerasethakul's Loong Boonmee Raleuk Chaa (which I'm most excited about.)
Outside of those 5 films there's only a 3 or 4 movies I'm particularly excited about. Which is about 3 or 4 more than I usually am.
Please oh please see Hong Sang-soo's new film, "Ha Ha Ha." That man is one of the best directors in the world, I should think, although never have I seen one of his films playing in a theater in this country (I'm sure they do, but not here in Austin). But, yes, there are many a good film playing this year. Would that I could be there. Sadly, no Malick, though. :/
Hope you enjoy these ten days completely, and that you see only good films (which may or may not happen)!
Savvy
Very interesting article, I only wish that I had been born in time to experience the magic that must have been the Cannes Film Festival in its hay day.
It's interesting to hear a traditional version of "Sinner Man". I love Nina Simone's rendering. I remember first hearing it in the 2004 film Cellular - a film I believe you said was better than it had a right to be. Cellular is a clever, old-fashioned thriller and I enjoyed it.
I hope that you and yours are having a wonderful time in Cannes, Roger. I know France is beautiful in the spring :)
Hi Mike Doran,
I have to disagree with your reasoning.
First, Avatar was left-wing agitprop. It made zillions because of the breakthrough 3-D and on the strength of the King of the World director. Plus, the blue people were pretty attractive.
Not true for any other LW Iraq film. Pile up the bodies, starting with Redaction, etc.
I'm not asking for "Right Wing" preachment. I'll even take neutrality on the issue. But, would it hurt for Hollywood to make one movie about Iraq or Afghanistan that has the presumption that American GI's are the good guys?
Think "Inglorious Bastards". American GI's are the good guys. Lots of things blowing up. It did well at the box office.
We've been at war in two theaters for nine years now. Yet, is there even one movie at Cannes or any other film festival that tells any story about those efforts that has the presumption that the American GI is the good guy? No. Pitiful.
(Note: I haven't looked at the schedule for Cannes. Am I wrong?)
Ebert: "Avatar" was "left wing agitprop?" Randy, Randy, Randy.
As soon as I read your opening paragraphs I started trying to figure out what were the best films of 1960 that didn’t show in competition that year (or in 1959 or 1961, I checked). I came up with Psycho, The Apartment, Rocco and His Brothers, Eyes Without a Face, Breathless, Shoot the Piano Player, The Bad Sleep Well, and La Verite. My point? It’s worthwhile praising the films of the past, but when it comes to the film festivals, foresight has never been entirely golden.
Most anticapted film of Cannes (For Me): Biutiful by Alejandro Inarritu Gonzalez.
Most Nervous About: Wall Street 2...I loved the first, Douglas deserved the Oscar, but a sequel? With Shia LeBouf? Pass.
And while 2009's Cannes lineup is not the greatest ever, it's up there-Up, Bright Star, Broken Embraces, Fish Tank, Inglourious Basterds, A Prophet, Thirst, White Ribbon, Precious, Dogtooth, Drag Me To Hell...when the weakest film of this group that I've seen is Antichrist, it's a great lineup.
I really wish I could go sometime. Have fun!
Vietnam war films that were released while the war was in progress did not do well at the box office.
Ones that did do good business -- "The Deer Hunter", "Platoon", "Apocalypse Now", any number of Stallone or Chuck Norris actions films -- were released many years after the end of the war.
A bigger difference, of course, is that a much larger percentage of Americans had some involvement in the Vietnam war, if only having a friend or relative who was there.
We've seen at least 3 films in the past year based on the Iraq war -- "In the Valley of Elah", "Stop Loss", and "The Hurt Locker". They were all well done.
If any one of them had a political message, I missed it.
We saw "The Hurt Locker" as the first half of a Netflix double bill, followed by "In The Loop". That one had even worse box office, but may be the most memorable movie I've seen in the past year.
Roger,
What an amazing line-up of directors, I wish I could be there! Even more exciting than last year's Toronto Film Festival where I was jumping out of my skin waiting for Bad Lieutenant!
I also lament the lack of opportunity to see these films on the big screen. Where else I am going to see a movie by Manoel de Oliveira? I can't even find his films on DVD let alone in a theatre where I live in the middle of Kansas. Yet still, your readership seems to be a ray of hope... At least I know I am not alone (even among people of my own generation) in my love for cinema as art.
Also, I am no huge fan of Kiarostami either, but The Wind Will Carry Us is a beautiful film, and as you say he is indisputably and artist... I hope he suprises you!
"Disney has already announced it will make no more ordinary first run movies, and will focus on 3D, animation, superheroes and franchises."
I've read this mentioned in several different blogs over the past month but haven't been able to find a source for it online. If anyone could point me toward a news story, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.
@ Vicki Halliday wrote:
"I'm with Marie on black and white films and photographs. Lately, I've been more and more drawn to them..."
Ooo!
Over at the 2010 Cannes Festival website, English version....
http://www.festival-cannes.com/en.html
If you scroll down and look to the far RIGHT side of your screen, you'll see they've got a really cool feature this year called "62 years in pictures" - it's a slideshow retracing the history of the Festival; ie: 62 years’ worth of photographs taken from some of the most prestigious collections.
Or if you're in the mood to see what people are wearing, there's that too - note: I like Kate Blanchett's dress at the opening ceremony; it was black and white; smile.
Not that I hate color - rather, cinema today is so over-saturated with it, that its actually lost some of its ability to catch my eye. It's too much like walking through a shopping mall with everything screaming LOOK AT ME.
Sometimes less is more. And then when you do see a splash of color, it resonates all the better thanks to the lack of color that came before.
You know who was a great color cinematographer? Jack Cardiff. :)
Salut Roger, and please forgive an off-topic post. But:
What do you think of when you hear the name of Robin Hood? I think of Errol Flynn, Sean Connery and the Walt Disney character. I see Robin lurking in Sherwood Forest, in love with Maid Marian (Olivia de Havilland or Audrey Hepburn)...
Nah-ah. I see Flynn and only Flynn; de Havilland and only de Havilland. Connery and Hepburn are/were priceless, indispensable... but elsewhere.
I think Erich Korngold put it best: (Hums title theme... daaaa-DA! da-Daa da-Daa da-Daaa...)
You know I speak reason.
Fluently.
Roger
Those must indeed have been halcyon days - a time when film was taken much more seriously as an art form. It must have been exciting to have cinema act as a forum for expressing ideas rather than a crude cash-generating franchise.
I recently moved out of my parents home and into my own condo. Among other things, I bought myself a (beautiful!) 50-inch plasma televsion, Blu-ray player, and stereo surround system. I'm ashamed to admit that I used my Blu-ray player a grand total of three times during the first eighteen months.
At the beginning of 2010, I signed up to rent DVDs from the internet (a Canadian equivalent of Netflix). I've seen 50 films so fat this year! The overwhelming majority have been foreign films and DVDs produced by Criterion. I've taken to educating myself with the canon of film giants: Kurosawa, Ozu, Godard, Bergman. Truly stunning films. But I've also enjoyed some of the finest examples of world cinema from the past two decades: works by Zhang Yimou and Wong Kar-Wai and such films as Hunger, Persepolis, Revanche, and, last night, Summer Hours.
It's sad, and a great loss not just for cineastes, that multiplexes so often ignore these. But I attend the Toronto International Film Festival, some theatrs here are willing to devote a screen or two to foreign films, and I'm renting some great DVDs. And I read and participate in this forum.
The modern film landscape may indeed be bleak, but don't give up all hope. I look forward to reading your reports, hearing of your recommendations, and debating with you and your fellow readers here the ongoing contributions of today's world cinema.
Not that movies have gotten worse. Not exactly, anyway. And I'm sure that there are as many good ones nowadays as there were before. But the bad ones are so pervasive that the good ones are so hard to find.
I'm convinced that your foreboding is of just another way that bad films will be exposed for what they are, leaving just enough room for the good films. (And yes, I always hope to see something good from a filmmaker I haven't heard of yet. Maybe we'll get the flip side of the Law of Unintended Consequences.)
Cannes, Hollywood Legends, and the End of an Era?
Perhaps the filmmakers thought because “Robin Hood” was decapitatingly serious that it was serious enough for Cannes. There is serious and then there is grim. RH seems nothing but grim. From what you mention, it is a shame that the technology used to make CGI has become yet another source for weapons of mass destruction, even if the destruction occurs in medieval times.
The Russell Crowe film that reminds me most of the Hollywood era you refer to in your review is the one he made with Ron Howard. The movie has as its title a name so horrendous that I had to look it up on the internet, apparently having blocked it from my mind. It’s called “Cinderella Man.” (Now, I’ll have to block it all over again.) In any event, it is a wonderful film. And it reminded me of the more innocent times in American cinema when movies were made by a standard set forth by the studios; that is, a certain moral standard was expected, as was the ability for parents to take their children to the movies without viewing carnage. Moreover, the Romans were a tad higher than us on that one. I don’t remember seeing any children in any movies about the “games” at the Roman Coliseum.
Epictetus states that everyone has their price. It is a shame that Ridley Scott’s is so low. I don’t know how much it cost to film “Cinderella Man” but it couldn’t have been all that much. The scenes were obviously shot on back lots, and I loved it for that, as well as so many other things. You recently mentioned “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” That movie is a model for filmmakers in so many ways. One of them is that the creators of it decided on a budget in advance and adhered to it so faithfully that they actually came in under budget. In other words, the difference lies in resourcefulness and staying true to why someone entered filmmaking in the first place. I’ll bet when he was in film school, Ridley Scott’s quiver was filled with arrows intended to be aimed higher than the movie you describe.
Cannes 1960! Add it to the must-go-once-they-make-time-machines list. It's pouring rain down here in west central IL, with thunder--and chilly. I want sun and beach and Gulietta Masina! Enjoy Cannes, Roger.
And oh yeah: If movies are going to be on TV first, they better be as good as the stuff Paddy Chayefsky and John Frankenheimer and Rod Serling were putting on the air in the '50s.
I'll try to tune in to your Cannes Festival coverage, busy as I will be the next few weeks (heck, I'm pretty busy right now!). I might miss Week 2, when I will be experiencing my first movie festival ever, here in Seattle. But once the madness is over, I'll come back over here and read about what happened at Cannes. :-)
Dear Flag-Hater,
I see that you fled our country to get away from all the press. I bet you're even going to watch Godard's Socialism. He ain't even a american. Hope you have a good time hatin' your country in France with all them other commies. Brother Glenn says we oughta keep our eye on you.
All the Best,
Buford M.D. Tannen
(The M.D. stands for mind your damn business).
P.S. the sad part is that while this is completely ridiculous and off-topic, it still needs a disclaimer that it's a joke.
Do you wonder if, one day, the work of Bergman, Bunuel, and Fellini will be outlawed along with films that don't follow the Hollywood-mandated formulas? I watched Truffaut's "Farenheit 451" recently and it gave me the willies as I thought about the trajectory of our current film crises. I exist within the world of local indie filmmakinng, and I'm seeing that even the most micro-budget passion pieces are often zombie ripoffs and romcoms hoping for crossover success. No serious dramas, which I think is perfect for a low-budget, and every single writer I know uses screenwriting manuals like they're the Quran. With Netflix, online movies, VOD, and inexpensive digital cameras, we have more options than ever before, and yet I look around me and am reminded of a quote: "What you want is ostensible diversity that conceals actual uniformity." Joseph Goebbels said that, and though I don't dare compare the world of cinema with the Third Reich, the principle espoused in that quote is way too familiar.
Would it be ludicrous of me to say that some movies would probably be better if they appeared first on television? The terrible, melodramatic, exploitative made-for-TV movies that appear on Lifetime, the Sci-Fi Channel, and the Hallmark Channel, nevertheless depend more on STORY and less on "art" than many feature films that appear at festivals. They have a stronger resemblance to the slower-moving, plot-oriented, cause-and-effect-centered movies that I relish from the 1970s and 80s than to the flashy, fast-edited, director-dominated "visions," "interpretations," and "works of art" that I've, sadly, learned to attempt to ignore.
For instance, after loving what he was able to do with THE INSIDER, I watched Michael Mann's PUBLIC ENEMIES with my father, who grew up watching the cinema of the 1940s and 50s, the John Ford pictures and the Billy Wilder films. I was extremely uncomfortable looking over at Dad as he winced at each line both poorly written and poorly delivered, as he scratched his head at moments of weak plot development and careless direction. When he said, "Why does this movie look like a home movie? Do they make all movies like this these days?" I was truly embarrassed. And I seem to remember PUBLIC ENEMIES' getting rave reviews from a great many critics. Could one watch it next to, say, DOUBLE INDEMNITY, and still feel good about it? If Mann had to grind it down to the basics for a 100-minute TV viewing, with commercial interruptions creating the necessity for moments of plot resolution and further development, could it have been worse?
I've never been to Cannes (yet). I could be way off base but I think there's a chance that this disinterest by major studios for unique films is somewhat cyclical. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part.
The current temperature somewhat reminds me of American cinema in the 60s before the blitzkrieg of young talent burst through in the 70s. I think the studios will stick with this sentiment for as long as it brings them the money. When filmmakers and audiences, as a collective, have had enough, the pendulum will swing back once again.
While I believe it's extremely important that films are seen, it's much more important that they're made. With the technological tools filmmakers have at their fingertips today we're able to be exposed to many more films than ever before. This is a good thing, and I suspect it will become even easier in the immediate future.
It's in our blood, as film lovers, to champion under-seen and lesser-known films and shake our hands at the heavens when dull, unoriginal films clean up at the box office. I suspect it's always been that way. But as long as people are out there still making the smaller, more intimate stories they'll always be there for people to discover at their own pace.
I recently stumbled across Wajda's "Ashes and Diamonds." I have to say, I was blown away. I think it's one of the best films I've ever seen in my life and I say that without any reservation. I mention it because, I believe, it screened at Cannes where it was well received and helped it to gain more exposure. It didn't clean up at the box office (I'm not even sure it got an American release, I doubt it) but fifty-tweo years later, I found it along with a brilliant new filmmaker to delve into. That makes me happy.
Cheer up Roger. The pendulum swings both ways.
Enjoy your time there, Roger. And thank you for posting your reviews, experiences, adventures there at Cannes, whether you're paid to post, or not. I get the chance to vicariously enjoy the perfumes and smells emanating from Cannes through your words. It's the closest I'll ever be to a film festival (having never been to one).
You are among the Cannes elite, sir.
God bless,
John
Roger, have you seen any of Apichatpong Weerasethakul's films? TIFF listed two of his among the top ten of their 'films of the decade' - Syndromes and a Century, and Tropical Malady - and I'm probably not the only person who's looking forward to his film most of this year's Cannes lineup. I was curious if you had any opinions about him, because I haven't seen his work reviewed on your site.
If you haven't seen any of his films, the best way I can describe them is "warm, humanist David Lynch", which I realize doesn't make any sense, but it's true. You're in for a wonderful treat.
I'm hoping Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives does well at Cannes, and I'm wishing it a speedy American distribution.
I have too much to do to go to Cannes, but I follow it fervently. Every name, every film, brings a little bit of excitement into my veins. I can't believe Richard Corliss said last year was the best. I thought it was a great lineup, but a lot of people disagree. This was a beautiful post, with very good opinions.
P.S. I have never seen Kiarostami, but I think I will at some point.
http://www.musicboxtheatre.com/features/metropolis-the-2010-restoration/
Were you aware of this?
Greetings.
First of all I want to say that you critics have a fuckin' wonderful life.
Second of all, you must give me the name of the movie you're dying to see in the festival, and why?
Thank you.
Randy:
I agree with Mike. The Hurt Locker wasn't a left or right wing film on the Iraq War and yet it still didn't perform well at the box office. Why? Because people don't have interest in Indie films/films driven by character performance. That's where Redbox and Netflix come in. They allow people to rent those great movies cheap while paying the big bucks to see huge action movies on the screen. Especially with the high movie prices today, people are trying to save more and more at the movies, even if they do want to escape. Think about it...
I wish this article would run front-page on every major newspaper. Our general public needs more education on these subjects. Its ashamed in the battle of art vs. money, money always wins. At least in the public eye.
DearER,
It's a wonderful curtain raiser for Cannes through your return with this article.
Hope people people who read this will catch the vibes too.
The return of "Madadayo" in at the end is so overwhelming! I remember the days when I watched this 3 hour movie for the first time and had a mesmerising spell for the next 3 years at least. Now, you reflect the Professor of Madadayo to me in more ways than one.
So, please keep on coming. We'll keep on waiting.
After all, cinema envisages "Life and Nothing More" (by Kiarostami). Even what Lars von Trier in Antichrist and Tarrentino in Inglurious Basterds reflected last year is LIFE, after all. I see a torch bearer of propagation of good cinema in you. Not only with what, but also with how you bear it for the light years to come.
The world of Apu grabs us to our roots by the creative forces of Ray and Subrata Mitra. Likewise,your world of Cinema gives one the vision with the driving force of yours and the creative zeals of your team of correspondents. Cheers to them too !They, with you, belong to this same world. So our world will not die. Time has not come. Madadayo.
Can't let the weekend start without a quick response to Randy's response:
(And Rog, here's another example of true irony.)
Randy sez that Avatar cleaned up at the b.o. because of the FX and Cameron.
First part is right: and that's what I said.
Second part, not so hot; rank-and-file moviegoers couldn't care less about who directed the picture, and the fanboys (who are not as numerous as some believe) will see anything with his name on it anyway.
The politics, presumed or otherwise, played no part whatsoever in any of the first group's decision to go.
BY and large, movie goers are baggage-free.
And be honest, Randy: a right-wing preachfest is exactly what you want (and what all the gang at Big Hollywood wants too).
Strange, isn't it; every time you try to disprove my points, you end up proving them.
And that, Roger, is irony.
Have a nice weekend, one and all.
Roger,
Once again you've provided much food for thought for this buff/critic/creator of cinema, and another reason why I want to one day make it to Cannes (how I get there doesn't matter).
I don't see the major studios going to day-and-date releases of major theatrical releases because of the recent FCC ruling you make passing reference to...yet. (Didn't they spend a lot of time railing against that before Soderbergh's "Bubble" came out?) At least not until they can no longer count on their tried-and-true blockbusters for $100 million-plus opening weekends. It will no doubt further minimize the gap between theatre and home availability for sure- my guess is six weeks in theatres before it hits On Demand.
I can see the indies and mini-majors like Lionsgate and whatever the Weinstein's company is called now utilizing it to the advantage of their "prestige" pictures by making them available On Demand for people unable to make it to the art house. Though like you, I do shudder at the idea of a film like "Precious" being debuted with commercial breaks. (**Homer Shudder**)
The bottom line is, like the American health care and banking system, the Hollywood system is broken beyond repair (not just in distribution but in production), and this time, Washington can't bail them out or regulate them. But we can send them a message as ticket-buying Americans. Stop buying tickets to needless reboots, requels, threequels, reimaginings, and everything Hollywood is spending its' time and money on beyond real creativity. True, this is beyond wishful thinking, but I can't think of another course of action to get the 'Wood back on track.
But critics can still be useful...by sometimes seeking out the films (and filmmakers) ourselves. Over the past few years I've been afforded the chance to see many wonderful films from ultra-low budget filmmakers with something to say beyond the typical Hollywood product through my website via filmmaker emails about sending screeners. My moviewatching life has been all the better as a result. The films aren't always polished, and admittedly some of them haven't been very good (with my first one being positively "Mystery Science Theatre 3000"-worthy), but to say I'm grateful to have gotten to see the likes of "Cookies & Cream," "Uptown," "The 4th Dimension," "Thicker Than Water," "Zorg & Andy"- and have even gotten to know the filmmakers- is a gross understatement. It's all about adaptation for anyone who cares about movies.
Hopefully, we'll let Hollywood get the message before we start seeing remakes of remakes in 2025... ;)
Why are you getting so lazy, of late, with regard to new additions to "Great movies"? Dozens of entries are waiting as we all know. Not so long ago, I'd suggested a few titles just to rev up the finalization of your eventual choices and you had been kind enough to answer "Circling to land". I guess that plane got lost in the Bermuda triangle. Also wanted to tell you that ,on a recent date i had finagled after arduous attempts, all the initial potential started fizzling out avec moi et le femme, and to add insult to injury ,she felt, over dessert, that Nabokov's "Lolita" was lugubrious. Perhaps you'll also share my grief when she added that she fell asleep halfway through 'La dolce vita'. i think she's trying to kid me! Should i give her one more chance?!
Kurosawa's "Madadayoo" (Not Yet) never had a general release in the USA. I saw it at Boston's Museum of Fine Arts, the only place that showed the film.
If I recall correctly, Fellini's last film also never had a general release in the USA either.
These days, I get DVDs from the library. The next one I'll watch is "Army of Shadows," another film that had a long, hard time to get to America.
Ebert: Actually, Siskel and I campaigned for the film on TV, and it did achieve a release in several cities.
Thanks for the Ken Loach link! My husband will sarcastically say, "oh, great." He doesn't have the stomach for Ken Loach movies after we watched Raining Stones, even though, for me, it has 2 scenes that make me laugh like crazy when I think of them: Tomlinson and the helicopter and the boys playing sod busters. I did not have to warn him to not watch Kes with me when I said it's Ken Loach. I just love that film.
Another piece of evidence that Cannes is also a spectacle is to watch the Canal Plus show "Cannes 2010." The set is too bright and flashy but at least they do show the opening and closing ceremonies and I probably get to see more of the past festival nominees on the Tele here in France.
I'd support you on your flag wearing article but I don't want to get accused of treason by speaking badly of my country while living in a foreign land. Love it and I left it for awhile.
take care, mo.
Hi, Roger,
Your first column from Cannes hit me with a shock: it is fifty years since I joined my father, Willy Wyler, in Cannes, taking my mother's usual place while she dealt with my siblings. He was on a fierce campaign to get the Palme d'Or for LA DOLCE VITA. He said it had not had the reception it deserved, and he was buttonholing everyone he could to sing its praises.
When it won, we spent a memorable evening with Fellini and Massina and others aboard a big yacht owned by Rizzoli. High times for everyone, but especially me!
Ebert: What a glorious memory! Good for a lifetime. I see "La Dolce Vita" every year or two, and it always speaks to me, and often has new things to say.
There is a certain someone here, from the sound of things of a militaristic persuasion, bitching and I mean B-I-T-C-H-I-N-G about not being appreciated for the HERO he and his crazy right wing war loving compadres are. I have neither any interest in speaking with such a person and nor am I going to respond if he tries to preach his religion of violence and self righteous nonsense to me. This is a message for anyone else who might be somewhat swayed by said person's histrionics, so here goes --
any discussion of violence must almost always and almost necessarily (given that the discussion is being had with a reasonable thinking human being and not some conditioned man-bot), begin with the completely legitimate position that war is a neanderthal pursuit, instituted by society at large to address hormonally imbalanced semi-retarded apes (for the most part) and to provide focused theaters of conflict which can be monitored far more easily than hundreds of thousands of blood lusting loons running around inner city neighborhoods wreaking havoc and terror upon innocent civilians, which undoubtedly they would do, should said diversions not have been provided for them by society at large.
Also, this is a phenomenon observed often in nature, example -- wildebeest are often accompanied on their migrations by zebras and during the perilous crossing of the swollen river gushing by, infested with crocodiles, the wildebeest follow the herd pattern and stick close together and suffer few casualties, whereas the zebras, who have far smaller packs and think themselves examples of valor much as the HERO of the great war adventures does, on a proportional basis suffer far greater losses to their herd.
Conclusion -- one big herd i.e. wildebeest/society, allows another big herd i.e. zebras/soldiers, i.e. the others, to duke it out with creatures of ideologies so ossified they might as well be fossils, at a smaller cost to society, although any loss of life, good or bad is tragic. Admittedly it would be quite difficult to try explaining the nuances of the trials of life such as this to a zebra, especially one which doesn't "believe" in either evolution or evolutionary behavioral psychology.
I paraphrase what a great man once said -- KEEP F-----G THAT CHICKEN HEROBOY JUST KEEP F-----G THAT F-----G CHICKEN
SPILL BABY SPILL! (does DRILL BABY DRILL! sound a tad premature now? How fortunate a choice of rhyming words SPILL BABY SPILL! A complete coincidence I assure you;). SPILL BABY SPILL! Not only in the Gulf of Mexico, but also in the pristine Alaskan waters. I paraphrase the great man quoted above once again -- LET'S KILL THE ENVIRONMENT, LET'S RAPE THE ENVIRONMENT. LET'S F--K THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE A-- WE'RE NOT HAPPY JUST KILLING EACH OTHER. WHAT DO WE WANT? THE RAPTURE! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? RIGHT F-----G NOW! GO SARAH! YEAH BABY!
I know this is not an accurate representation of the laudable U.S. Army, which has done great good by fighting much injustice around the world, but it does indeed besmirch an honorable institution. Sadly this is not the first time that such an incident or for that matter, incidents far worse than this have occurred.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvXsJ6Om3N4
Congratulations to this HERO douche, for having succeeded for the umpteenth time to turn a discussion about cinema, squarely back onto his ridiculously pompous self.
P.S. Clearly the guy cribbing about not being recognized for the great and gallant HERO he and his kind are, didn't watch "The Hurt Locker" and if he did, clearly he didn't understand it, which is nothing unusual for him.
Hi Roger.. this article has really had me thinking. The opening paragraph is one of the most beautiful and thought-provoking things I've ever come across... the film of a lifetime. I wrote this blog based on your article here:
http://blackdeadsea.blogspot.com/2010/06/once-in-lifetime.html
I'd be curious to know what you think!
Best wishes,
Andrew