« THB - La Vie En Rose | Main | The Hairspray Trailer »

April 19, 2007

Cannes Duh

Pronounce it “do.” That’s what the French and most journalists who are having their way paid to France in a couple of weeks will make it sound.

But with due respect to a very good film festival, it seems anxious to become more irrelevant to the American marketplace every year.

Looking at this year’s competition titles….

The Weinstein Co opens the festival with My Blueberry Nights, which every critic, including me, will be tautly anxious to see in expectation of real genius. And which will do less than $8 million in North America. Really, anything over $3.5 million will be a surprise, though this one will be in English, making it more accessible than the much beloved $1.5 million grossing 2046.

The Weinstein Co’s Death Proof will give critics a chance to see the Tarantino in an extended cut, separate from Planet Terror. No doubt, there will be endless gushing over the superiority of this cut from a critics corps that can’t help but to give it up for Tarantino under all and any circumstances, leading to Harvey Weinstein dipping his toe into an art house run for Death Proof alone in June or August.

Universal’s We Own The Night will be up for awards consideration in the fall with former Oscar nominees Phoenix, Wahlberg, and Duvall in another Russian mod thing by James Gray, whose last film, The Yards, was chewed on by Harvey Weinstein and a cause celebre for many critics.

(EDIT, 5:55p - Universal has given up distribution rights to We Own The Night, so it is apparently up for grabs at Cannes.)

Paramount Vantage presents The Coen Bros’ latest opus – likely to be the most likeable film in competition – No Country For Old Men. I love The Coens and can only hope that Michael Wilmington is somewhere close if no one gets it early.

Focus Features takes in Julian Schnabel’s third feature, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, the no-doubt-highly-stylized story of a paralyzed writer who has only the use of one eye to blink out his tales of his inner life. Schnabel is capable of great art and great indulgence and I look forward to both.

(EDIT, Friday, 12:05p - Now it appears that NBC/Universal's Focus division has given up hier domestic distribution option on The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, so it too is apparently up for grabs at Cannes. This again speaks to the trend of major distributors having a dominant level of power on the American market, though apparently Pathe is pleased with the film and hasn't had any trouble with interest overseas.)

The only popular American name with a film going into the festival without distribution is Gus van Sant with Paranoid Park, another no-name flick about a skateboarder who kills accidentally. This will be the sale that gets headlines.

Now, the thing about Cannes is that it fades into utter obscurity in this country by the opening of Pirates 3 and all of these studios will have to do a 100% relaunch of these films in the fall. Now, this is not all bad. It has been a good formula for a few films looking for Oscar bites, including Babel and Mystic River. But the last Cannes pick-up to make it to the Best Picture race was The Pianist.

This, of course, does not speak to the many films that critics are most excited about seeing in France. Films by Kim Ki Duk, Emir Kusturica, Carlos Reygadas, Alexandre Sokourov, and Bela Tarr lead the list, though from the 10 new films (Fincher’s Zodiac takes its onanism to France) from lesser known directors, you can expect that some critics will take up the cause for one or two being more important for its obscurity... oh, yes… and they might well be right.

Out of competition, there are films by Barbet Schroeder (L'Avocat de la Terreur). Harmony Korine (Mister Lonely), Olivier Assayas (Boarding Gate), Abel Ferrara (Go Go Tales), Catherine Owens and Mark Pellington (U2 3D), Michael Winterbottom (A Mighty Heart), and Lynn Novick and Ken Burns (The War).

And fighting to be the most commercial film at Cannes this year will be Sicko by Michael Moore and Ocean’s 13 by Steven Soderbergh.

Some wonder why I don’t go to Cannes. And the list above is the reason. Toronto and Sundance are on my Every Year list because they define American cinema for the year. And at both festivals, I feel like I am not getting in enough of the titles that are not as commercial, not as celebrated, not as likely to be seen ever again.

Toronto is not a market festival… not really. It is a solid marketing festival combined with a spectacular local festival and I appreciate it as such.

Sundance is a market and the festival is now fighting to remain a market. The indie world is a bit upside down right now, so it’s been an odd run lately. But still, the truth of Sundance is still that anything could happen. Every year there are a handful of titles that suddenly emerge as films that “matter,” at least commercially. Little Miss Sunshine went in with nothing to gain, anointed The Film Most Likely, so that isn’t what I am talking about. This year, Savages was the best buzzed film at the fest, coming in with Searchlight having made the movie. Not that either. I mean Son of Rambow or Once or Grace is Gone or movies like that. Somehow at Sundance, these things narrow and define and redefine all in a matter of days.

At Cannes, there will be plenty of ego stroke, lots of international business done at very expensive prices, and most critics/journalists from America will go in with a list of 15 films they have to see, lots of parties they must get into, and “exclusive” coverage of Michael Moore, the Ocean’s crew, Tarantino, and maybe one or two other stories that emerge over there.

And truthfully, if I could wander around the Croisette with the cache of The New York Times or Variety or EW or whatever, I could afford to show up and be bemused by the spectacle of it all, not worrying too much about the significance or insignificance of it all. But Cannes needs to be worked by media that isn’t in that vaunted crowd. And when I look at a festival that demands that kind of work and yes, expense, I have to consider what the results that come from the experience are. As a result, Cannes remains a non-started for me. It’s a long way to go to see Sicko a few weeks early. And it’s a rather expensive trip to see next year’s Robert Koehler Collection three months before the highlights all land in Toronto. (Truth is, it’s great to have Bob around to curate the less commercial side of Toronto as that fest rolls out each year.)

But that’s just me.

Posted by poland at April 19, 2007 02:09 PM

Comments

My Blueberry Nights will be lucky to make 3.5 million but Hairspray will make 200 million? (kidding, kidding)I don't know, that doesn't sound right. My Blueberry Nights has Jude Law, Natalie Portman and Norah Jones (who a lot of folks love as a singer). I think it should definitely make at least ten million, but I would bet on twenty. The Weinsteins are gonna market the shit out of it and they know how to get projects like that off the ground. At least, they used to...

David Fincher takes his "onanism" to France? Come on, Dave, lay off, you bring your onanism to this blog every day! But seriously, I didn't really find that film indulgent or masturbatory in the least because it didn't call attention to Fincher as the director. It was a restrained film, not a Tarantino-esque masturbatory "look at me!" flick.

But, I'm most excited to see Paranoid Park. Gus Van Sant, to me, with his whole Bela Tarr phase, has become the most interesting filmmaker working the last few years and I'm anxious to see what else he's got up his sleeve.

Posted by: Noah [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2007 02:30 PM

"At least, they used to..."

And even those who love it seem to agree that Zodiac was all about Fincher. Yes, he doesn't splat all over the audience like QT. He was, in this film, more like the guy at the opening of Shortbus.

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2007 02:40 PM

Did you just call "No Country For Old Men" likeable? It's a fantastic novel and I have no idea how the Coen Bros. are approaching the material but "likeable" seems like an odd choice of words for such a violent and bleak piece of work.

Posted by: Krazy Eyes [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2007 02:44 PM

Have you ever seen a Coen Bros film that didn't have not only like, but joy in a movie way?

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2007 02:47 PM

But, if he's like the guy in the beginning of Shortbus, then you're saying he blew himself and I don't really see it that way since I didn't find it to be an indulgent film. I thought it was about the subject, not the director. But, agree to disagree.

Posted by: Noah [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2007 02:53 PM

Not to open up any old wounds, but Fincher's work in Zodiac was about the serial killer genre as a movie concept. He did a lot to define that genre, so there's some metatextual issues going on as we watch it, but they're not really in the film itself.

Perhaps only Fincher could have directed it to the same effect, but that doesn't mean he made a movie regressively about himself.

Posted by: Eric [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2007 03:00 PM

Of all these movies playing Cannes this year, I'd gladly have traded the last FIVE years of Sundance to attend this years Cannes. And I was AT the last five Sundances.

Not to get on a soap box here, but the "American audience" makes me vomit in my own mouth almost daily. Hats off to Cannes and other festivals that are about movies and not huge jackpots of money. Give me Wong Kar-Wai over another Ice Cube shuck n jive any day of my life.

Posted by: PetalumaFilms [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2007 03:41 PM

"Even those who love it seem to agree that Zodiac was all about Fincher"

If this is true, it's because, like so many works of art, it's a _personal film_. Just like Taxi Driver is all about Scorsese and Schrader. Just like any Wong Kar-Wai movie is all about WKW. This is one of the reasons why it's one of the best films of the year...and what is 'onanistic' about burying an audience in ugly suits and lengthy exposition scenes? We're not talking about M. Night Shyamalan casting himself as the writer who saves the world here. Some perspective please.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2007 04:15 PM

Before making any comments, I'd like to ask a couple of questions which may or may not have already appeared in this blog.

1) Why wasn't I'm Not There (Todd Haynes) on the list? Everything I had read seemed certain it would be part of the lineup?

2) On a similar note, why wasn't my most anticipated film of 2007 on the list? What's that? Oh yes, the film in question is P.T. Anderson's There Will Be Blood. I'm assuming it just wasn't ready on time, but does anyone have a more definitive scoop on the matter?

As far as the films that WERE included, I'd just like to add a few notes. I am enthusuastic about My Blueberry Nights, though the cast and change to English/America has me slightly worried.

I was also puzzled to see Zodiac included, though I loved the film and feel it's easily one of the best releases of 2007 thus far. I usually don't follow Cannes too closely, but I didn't think movies which had already had a wide theatrical run were eligible for the Competition category. Perhaps this will give the film a chance at a re-release later in the year to recoup some of its unfortunate financial losses.

Finally, there's No Country for Old Men. I agree with the guy who felt the subject matter wasn't exactly "likeable," though I believe I know what David Poland was getting at by using that term. Personally, my once passionate love affar with the Brothers Coen first began diminishing when they released the fun but overrated O Brother Where Art Thou. Of course then came The Man Who Wasn't There, which I truly enjoyed. Intolerable Cruelty was my least favorite of theirs until The Ladykillers came out soon thereafter. I'd have to go back and see those latter two again, but I'm thinking that The Ladykillers is their first film I just simply did not like (with Intolerable Cruelty nearly joining that group). I haven't seen their piece for the Paris anthology feature, but I truly hope they can get back on top of their game with this one.

Despite the mediocre lineup, 2007 has me more excited about going to the movies than I have been in years. So many potentially exciting projects on the horizon...

Posted by: Moniker Jones [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2007 07:52 PM

I wonder if the Coens will change the ending of "No Country for Old Men"? The last part seemed uncinematic to me.

Posted by: grandcosmo [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2007 07:57 PM

I have to reread No Country for Old Men, because I recall growing bored and tired at the very end of the novel, waking up the next morning and not understanding what had even transpired in the final pages.

I didn't even bother to reread those pages at the time, which was either a sign of my laziness or the book's underwhelming resolution. Since Cormac's not around to read this I'll go with the latter.

Yes, I've used the word "latter" twice now...if not more.

Posted by: Moniker Jones [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2007 08:01 PM

Again with the "Savages"! This was in nooo way the best-buzzed about film at Sundance. Not even the second- or third-best buzzed about film. In fact, the three films you named right after got a hell of a lot more buzz than "Savages" - "Grace is Gone" was the critical hit and "Son of Rambow" was the crowd pleaser.

Also, I'm not really sure what you're saying about "Little Miss Sunshine" going into Sundance last year with nothing to gain...can you explain that more?

Posted by: James Leer [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2007 09:08 PM

The ending of "No Country for Old Men" was fine and I liked the novel but it just seems to be hard to translate to the screen.

Now if someone had the balls and talent to adapt and film "Blood Meridien" that would be something.

Posted by: grandcosmo [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 19, 2007 11:54 PM

But what do you suggest? Which movies should have been put in competition in place of these? What kind of outcome are you looking for from the festival and what changes would you make to attain that? If Dave Poland ran the show, how would it be different exactly?

Posted by: Hallick [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 20, 2007 12:02 AM

I think if Dave was running the Cannes show then it would become as irrelevant as Sundance and any festival set in a Caribbean nation or in random country towns in wherever. Cannes is much more relevant than Sundance (which launches about one MAYBE two films a year?) Cannes is relevant for celebrating the work of beloved directors and discovering new ones. At every other festival they are trying to find "the next Sundance hit!" or "the next Toronto hit", but Cannes is more about celebration. It's a veritable orgy of the world's great directors.

But then again, it's not based on the American continent and doesn't have movies screaming "Oscar, I'm easy!" so of course it's irrelevent.

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 20, 2007 12:34 AM

Whoa. Sundance launches a lot more than one or two films a year. By what do you define that?

I'd argue that both festivals are relevant. Sundance is relevant to the U.S. slate of movies, and Cannes is relevant globally.

Posted by: James Leer [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 20, 2007 01:05 AM

DP . . . you might have a point about the Coens at least giving a sense of filmic joy to their adaptation even when the subject matter is grim. They walked that line well with Barton Fink. I do worry about them resorting to their often arch depictions of violence and death which I think would be the wrong approach to this material.

grandcosmo wrote: "Now if someone had the balls and talent to adapt and film "Blood Meridien" that would be something."

Well, according to the IMdB Ridley Scott is taking a swing at "Blood Meridian" for a 2009 release. Sounds like wishful thinking on the part of a contributor. Any industry confirmation?

I also read on another board the John Hillcoat (The Proposition) was attached to "The Road."

Posted by: Krazy Eyes [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 20, 2007 05:46 AM

"But with due respect to a very good film festival, it seems anxious to become more irrelevant to the American marketplace every year."

Is there negative relevance, because otherwise Cannes' relevance has been zero for years.

Posted by: Blackcloud [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 20, 2007 08:40 AM

There is a simple reason DP doesn't go to Cannes - Cannes is about FILMS, American/Caribbean film festivals are about BUSINESS.

Since DP nearly writes exclusively on the business of Hollywood, rather than the artistry there isn't any real point to his attending Cannes.

Posted by: montrealkid [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 20, 2007 09:00 AM

OK, I can see why "DaVinci Code" opened at Cannes last year. The film's quality (which I won't get into here) wasn't so much the issue as the fact that it was an eagerly anticipated adaptation of a huge international best seller. But can you tell me that anyone has been sitting around panting for "Ocean's 13?" The cast may make it a "get" for the festival, but after the by the numbers, "Ocean's 12" is there any reason to expect this one to any good???

Sad to say but Soderbergh isn't Rami when it comes to high budget sequels.

Posted by: samguy [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 20, 2007 12:44 PM

The world of cinema does not begin and end with American box-office hits. Sure, Cannes will try to book a couple of big American films from celebrated directors or stars but its main focus is Eurocentric ... and difficult art films and directors that take chances deserve a venue to be seen at and celebrated also.

Posted by: Lynch Van Sant [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 20, 2007 01:23 PM

I stopped caring about Cannes when they rejected Brokeback.

Posted by: Filmsnob [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 20, 2007 03:04 PM

I stopped caring about Cannes when they rejected Brokeback.

Posted by: Filmsnob [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 20, 2007 03:04 PM

What do you think about this story on SpeedDating for film distribution? http://thenewsroom.com/details/310551
If this works, I think it could be a serious disruptor!

Posted by: ayalah [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 20, 2007 07:02 AM

Post a comment

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.)


Remember me?