The Hot Blog

Cannes is irrelevant, and has been for years.

I like Cannes. I don't know why, but I do.

I must bring up with you Dave your chart. For Elephant did you meant to type that it grossed $1.3mil and not $13mil. Because it did NOT gross $13mil, but it did gross $1.3mil.

I also meant to write:

Why did that article turn into a review of L'enfant?

Thanks for the good catch, Kami.

And I don't know. What struck me odd was that even if that was going to be the key example, why was there one minor quote from the guys who actually distributed the film? The SPC boys aren't exactly quote shy either.

So has anyone actually seen any of these films, much less come up with opinions about them?
L'Enfant is good, but not as good as other Rosetta. . Fahrenheit 9/11 had no reason to exist after Nov. 2004. I didn't care for Dancer in the Dark or Taste of Cherry. Secrets & Lies is very good, Elephant and The Pianist are masterpieces. And I never saw the others.

Sorry about the bad grammar up there re: the Dardenne films.

Maybe I'm just confirming the point, but I've seen all the films that were either in english or hit big with the Academy (bar Secrets & Lies).

Fahrenheit 9/11 was great but as it becomes a distant memory so does it's relevance and it's quality. The Pianist was really very excellent and I was so happy Adrian Brody won the Oscar (or I was when I finally saw it). Dancer in the Dark and Elephant however are some of my all-time favourites. Astounding films there. In fact, in an odd occurance I just happened to rewatch Elephant 2 days ago. I'd have to trouble placing both in my Top 50 (in fact, I'd do so freely and without a care). I've been loving the Dancer in the Dark soundtrack lately. "The New World", "I've Seen It All" and "Cvalda" are all brilliant.

I can't believe L'Enfant won last year... I thought it was fairly medicore and I liked Tsotsi much better for that sort of subject matter.

If Cannes awards films that make no money and have no interest to American viewers then everyone dumps on it for being too arty. If the festival is too commerical then people dump on it for selling out and not being independent enough.
This is silly.
There are well over 100 films there and one can easily see either completely arty films or films aimed at American commercial interests. Yes, the competetion films are geared toward commercial interests. But so what? I think it simply reflects the reality of cinema today.
That said, one can still see completely obscure cool art films there. But you may not see them in America. Why? Because distributors can't make bank on a Cannes winning film let alone something like a well reviewed a Hungarian musical.

But Matt... the only reason any American who is not an industry insider even knows that Cannes is going on... the reason it gets attention here... is how it connects to the U.S.

There are many fine festivals in Europe. And historically, filmmakers target Cannes the way American indie filmmakers target Sundance and fall launch movies target Toronto. So between that and the failure, so far, of American fests (Sundance particularly) to engage the rest of the world, Cannes does get more quality international premieres than any other festival.

Yet, they still pander to America. And unlike Sundance, about which I would make the same argument you just made, they are getting worse, not better. Sundance was going in this direction a few years back, as the Dependents emerged. But they have quite consciously pushed away from the studio hype table. There is still plenty of hype. But the pandering in the actual festival has been limited. And Sundance never stooped to comic book sequels, international thrillers and studio cartoons.

The balance between art and commerce is very challenging. But you can’t make it better by ostriching it either.

"Ostriching it"--Does that mean sticking one's own head in the sand, or sticking the problem in the sand?

Is Cannes still relevant to the US?

Judging from the amount of blogs currently debating that very question, along with the liekely quality of films in the official selection, I'd say probably, yeah.

Is the lack of box-office clout of Palme D'Or winners in the US a sign that the Festival is out of tune with mainstream audicences?

Of course. It's also a sign that mainstream audiences in the US are out of tune with quality international cinema, which is rather sad...

Is Cannes pandering to American interests?

Of course it is. The US is the biggest market in the West, boasts the biggest stars, the most influential critics etc. Should Cannes ignore it altogether. Having said that, don't forget that American interests are by and large the interests of the French mainstream as well. The four blockbusters that you mention are out-of-competition titles. They're mainly there for general (non-industry) audiences to see a bit of glitz if they so choose.

Does that mean the program is sacrificing on quality?

Of course not. First of all, there's potentially quite a lot of quality in the few titles "with built-in American interest" (though how much American interest is built into Ken Loach's new film is debatable, especially considering there's no US distributor). Second, like most American blog articles on Cannes you fail to mention or discuss the dozens of titles which are not commercial, are not in English, or will not back-up your 'selling out' argument.

Without the full picture, it's your analysis which is danger of becoming irrelevant, not the Festival.

I would agree somewhat that the Cannes bends to the American market.
I've followed the fest for many years and the most striking thing is that the competition films usually reflect a wide variety of films from mainstream [sort of] to the way out. But ultimately I believe Cannes simply tries to reflect where cinema today.
The reason they would choose a big studio summer type film when Sundance would not probably has more to do with geography than programmer preference.
Nonetheless, I think that if Cannes stayed completely away from Hollywood they would really be ignored and irrelevent. So maybe by attracting some mainstream attention they can also get a bit of hype for a film like L'Enfant [or Taste of Cherry], which I think may not even be released in the US if it didn't win.

As I wrote, 20 films in competition. Seven are in English and/or have American distribution (and mostly, financing).

That is the picture I was discussing.

If you want to discuss the market, we can discuss that. But the only American press that covers the market are the trades.

2005 | Enfant, L' | $465,000 | $4,700,000
2003 | Elephant | $1,300,000 | $9,000,000
2002 | The Pianist | $33,000,000 | $88,000,000
2001 | The Son's Room | $1,000,000 | $10,800,000
2000 | Dancer in the Dark | $4,000,000 | $36,000,000

Who cares if it means anything to America - it's your loss. It might mean something to EUROPE though. And Asia? The Pianist made $33mil in American yet $88mil in the rest of the world. What does that say? Elephant amd Dancer in the Dark made around 9 times as much in the rest of the world.

If American audiences don't want them then they don't have to have them.

I agree, KC... which is why the pandering is so disturbing.

You mention 7 projects in English and/or with American distribution. Now, it is hardly worth calling them sellouts for including projects by directors such as Almodovar (who was a regular in Cannes before being a box office draw in America), Ken Loach or even Richard Kelly.
Second of all you seem to completely leave out Red Road, which based on its IMDB-page looks like a low budget English-film. Did you not include this one because it doesn't fit your overall point?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: