Cannes 2009

[MacGuffin]

I'll never understand the "he makes great films but I don't like his personality" argument. Who the hell cares?

I hope you weren't referring to my post. I know I don't care.

[MacGuffin]

Antichrist press conference from the Cannes Film Festival website. (http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/9902.html) I'm gonna listen.

[MacGuffin]

Wow, this is amazing. von Trier may be one of top three smartest working directors right now.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'd like to have a beer with Kurosawa Fan.

Who wouldn't? I'm all kinds of lovable!

[MacGuffin]

Reporter: [something alone the lines of] I'm wondering if you can help us understand this, and this is not an aggressive question, but can you help us understand what you are trying to say, if you are trying to saying anything with this movie.

LVT: [something alone the lines of] No. I'm not trying to say anything. It's like a dream on film. That's all.

[Winston*]

I'd like to have a beer with Kurosawa Fan.

Even with knowledge of Kurosawa Fan's real Bjork torturing?

[Melville]

Antichrist press conference from the Cannes Film Festival website. (http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/mediaPlayer/9902.html) I'm gonna listen.
I love his confusion at being compared to Argento.

[balmakboor]

Wow, this is amazing. von Trier may be one of top three smartest working directors right now.

I just watched about 10 minutes of the press conference and I'm trying to connect your words to that person. Assuming you aren't being facetious, how does that mumbling man who appears to be almost cowering strike you as one of the "top three smartest working directors right now?"

I actually got the distinct impression that von Trier is play acting during that conference. His chosen role of the moment is suffering, depressive, could commit suicide at any moment artist dealing with his pain by making movies for his own theraputic purposes only. I actually thought he evaded a valid question from the first reporter: "Why did you make this film!?!"

[number8]

Wow! A case where the reader comments were actually better than the article.

Best one (contains spoiler):


I'm aware that the self-proclaimed Greatest Director on Earth doesn't follow the nonsense rules of Dogme 95. I'm particularly glad he didn't for this movie, as I really don't want to see anything filmed where a prop like a fake penis that ejaculates blood could be found (rule 1).

[MacGuffin]

I actually got the distinct impression that von Trier is play acting during that conference. His chosen role of the moment is suffering, depressive, could commit suicide at any moment artist dealing with his pain by making movies for his own theraputic purposes only. I actually thought he evaded a valid question from the first reporter: "Why did you make this film!?!"

The first reporter is more pompous than von Trier and needs to pull his head out of his ass. You're right about the first sentence, I think, that said.

[balmakboor]

The first reporter is more pompous than von Trier and needs to pull his head out of his ass. You're right about the first sentence, I think, that said.

I thought the guy was honestly outraged and, from what I've read, outrage is an honest reaction. If von Trier wants to provoke that reaction, he should be prepared to defend it. If he didn't want to provoke that reaction, this may prove him one of the stupidest directors working today.

[MacGuffin]

I thought the guy was honestly outraged and, from what I've read, outrage is an honest reaction. If von Trier wants to provoke that reaction, he should be prepared to defend it. If he didn't want to provoke that reaction, this may prove him one of the stupidest directors working today.

When did he ever say he was surprised by the reaction? I don't think the guy was outraged, rather than he was just a stupid moron who couldn't comprehend for himself what he had seen and who has no business being at the Cannes Film Festival, because he obviously knows very little about movies. Take this quote from the reporter in question who confronted von Trier first thing at the press conference, which appeared here (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/05/18/arts/AP-EU-France-Cannes-Von-Trier.html?_r=2), in the New York Times (Coincidence? I think not. Clearly the reporter soon after the movie knew he would pull such an immature stunt): '''Dogville' was hated. I defended his right to make that film, and I defend his right to make this film. But he still has to explain why he made it and what it represents.''

[Melville]

That was a pretty good press conference, though some of the questions seemed fairly inane. I agree with Clipper that the first question was ridiculous; why should a creator have to justify making a film? If the questioner thought that the film had the potential to do some social harm or something, then he should have made that clear; but otherwise, why shouldn't it exist? Why does it need any more justification than any other film?

Von Trier came off as nervous and somewhat inarticulate, but he has a good sense of humor. If I drank, I'd totally have a beer with him.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Even with knowledge of Kurosawa Fan's real Bjork torturing?

This is totally out of context and you know it.

[number8]

What's with the crowding for autograph? I've never seen that happen at a press conference before. Conventions, sure. Public appearances, of course. But press? That's weird to me, especially in this case, after the baffled/negative reaction from them.

[baby doll]

By the way, is it really true that the ends always justify the means? Dancer in the Dark and The Shining could've been made just as effectively without their directors resorting to torturing their heroines.I don't have much real world experience in this area, apart from working on a few student films (certainly nothing as intense or ambitious in terms of artistry as a film by Kubrick or Trier), but my feeling is that, for an actor, the set is their workplace. So keep it professional, guys.

Of course this raises the whole issue of whether Kubrick and Trier are misogynistic directors. Obviously I'm not qualified to say whether either one is a misogynist. But when it comes to their films, I think we can look at Kubrick's 2001 and say that it's, at the very least, pre-feminist: the most common complaint against the film from this angle is that Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke can dream up this grand vision of the future, but can't imagine a more active role for women in it. In Trier's case, it's often said that he enjoys seeing his heroines suffer, but as a professor of mine once said, you can't be nice to your characters; you have to put them through hell. I think Yu Hua's To Live is a great book (I haven't seen the film by Zhang Yimou) because every time things start to go good for the hero, he's hit with another cataclysmic tragedy.

[Spinal]

I don't have much real world experience in this area, apart from working on a few student films (certainly nothing as intense or ambitious in terms of artistry as a film by Kubrick or Trier), but my feeling is that, for an actor, the set is their workplace. So keep it professional, guys.


But you're not an actor. So this should not matter to you.

[Spinal]

I mean, seriously, is there any doubt that Trier's films would be LESS interesting and exciting with increased 'professionalism'? Does anybody say, "Hey, Herzog and Kinski! Keep it professional!"

And before anyone points out that I gave Bale a hard time for his tirade, I will point out that the man is not good at what he does, in my opinion, and that's the difference.

[Watashi]

And before anyone points out that I gave Bale a hard time for his tirade, I will point out that the man is not good at what he does, in my opinion, and that's the difference.

I don't understand this at all. What does it matter if the actor is good or not?

[Ezee E]

Spinal's also done that with Mel Gibson if I remember right.

[baby doll]

I mean, seriously, is there any doubt that Trier's films would be LESS interesting and exciting with increased 'professionalism'? Does anybody say, "Hey, Herzog and Kinski! Keep it professional!"

And before anyone points out that I gave Bale a hard time for his tirade, I will point out that the man is not good at what he does, in my opinion, and that's the difference.Aguirre: The Wrath of God is a great film because of what's on screen, not because of anything that happened on the set. I haven't seen any evidence that suggests it's necessary to put an actor through hell for them to give a great performance.

[number8]

And before anyone points out that I gave Bale a hard time for his tirade, I will point out that the man is not good at what he does, in my opinion, and that's the difference.

I'd never thought you would say something like this. So people get a free pass from unpleasant behavior as long as they're talented? Good to know. The second I win a Palme D'Or I'm going to realize my lifelong dream of urinating into a bitch's ear.

[Sycophant]

Weird thread is weird.

Entertainment/filmmaking is a werid industry. Sometimes, as an actor, your job is to be stripped naked and be the recipient of simulated rape. Sometimes, as a director, your job is to make rape into good cinema.

So. As long as no party is so offended that they're not seeking recourse or quitting, what the fuck do I care.

Still thinking the Bale brouhaha is some of the stupidest reactionary bullshit the Internet's yet produced.

[baby doll]

I'd never thought you would say something like this. So people get a free pass from unpleasant behavior as long as they're talented? Good to know. The second I win a Palme D'Or I'm going to realize my lifelong dream of urinating into a bitch's ear.The second I don't win the Palme d'Or, I'm pulling... well, a Lars von Trier, circa 1991 when he called Roman Polanski a midget.

[Boner M]

LvT looks so cuddly. I just wanna hug him.

[Grouchy]

I just watched that conference and I agree with Clipper here. I mean, some of those questions were incredibly stupid, specially the first guy's. I mean, "this is the Cannes Film Festival, you need to justify bringing this film here". No. Fuck you, and the horse you ate on the way over, atomic-bomb testing motherfucker. Explain what offended you about the film, otherwise shut the fuck up. Thousands of offensively stupid films are made every year, I don't see all those directors explaining why they made it. You know why? The single most popular reason is money. The reporter has no right to demand some sort of explanation from the director. Von Trier didn't punch anybody in the face. He just made a film that was found offensive by some people. Big deal. Get the fuck over it.

As for the whole "abusing actors" thing, I think in Dancer's case, Björk simply didn't have the necessary talent and stamina the role demanded. In any case, the mistake was casting a popular singer instead of an actress on the first place. In the process of getting the performance the movie deserved, some egos got shattered and fights ensued. It has happened at a lot more shootings than we're aware of.

[MacGuffin]

I mean, "this is the Cannes Film Festival, you need to justify bringing this film here"

That was, indeed, hilariously inane. I loved how von Trier said something like: "All of you are my guests, not the other way around". Brilliant. Also, Gainsbourg was lookin' really good.

[chrisnu]

Apparently, at the press conference in Cannes, Trier said "I am the best film director in the world. I’m not sure if God is the best God in the world." Awesome and hilarious.

Also, the description of the scenes of gore in the film sound pretty grotesque:
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/05/so_what_happens_to_willem_dafo es_genitals.html
Yeah, I'm not seeing this. Sorry.

[Ivan Drago]

Also, the description of the scenes of gore in the film sound pretty grotesque:
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/05/so_what_happens_to_willem_dafo es_genitals.html

Uhhh....










...yeeeeah.

:vomits:

[B-side]

I just watched that conference and I agree with Clipper here. I mean, some of those questions were incredibly stupid, specially the first guy's. I mean, "this is the Cannes Film Festival, you need to justify bringing this film here". No. Fuck you, and the horse you ate on the way over, atomic-bomb testing motherfucker. Explain what offended you about the film, otherwise shut the fuck up. Thousands of offensively stupid films are made every year, I don't see all those directors explaining why they made it. You know why? The single most popular reason is money. The reporter has no right to demand some sort of explanation from the director. Von Trier didn't punch anybody in the face. He just made a film that was found offensive by some people. Big deal. Get the fuck over it.

As for the whole "abusing actors" thing, I think in Dancer's case, Björk simply didn't have the necessary talent and stamina the role demanded. In any case, the mistake was casting a popular singer instead of an actress on the first place. In the process of getting the performance the movie deserved, some egos got shattered and fights ensued. It has happened at a lot more shootings than we're aware of.

Can I rep you, like, 20 times for this?

[number8]

No. Fuck you, and the horse you ate on the way over, atomic-bomb testing motherfucker.

Come, now. He was British.

[Rowland]

So everyone is just happily spoiling Antichrist now? I'll gladly wait.

[number8]

So everyone is just happily spoiling Antichrist now? I'll gladly wait.

I've been reading every review I can find of the film, and I'm kind of surprised that over half of them spoil "the scene" so casually. I guess most of them believe that people should know what they're getting into and don't see it as spoiling. I'd be pretty pissed if I didn't know about it already.

[baby doll]

So everyone is just happily spoiling Antichrist now? I'll gladly wait.Yeah, I've been skimming more than reading the reviews to avoid spoiling it for myself.

[Boner M]

To be fair, there's rarely been a legendary puke-inducing 'money shot' scene that hasn't been subject to saturation-spoiling shortly after it's been seen.

[balmakboor]

To be fair, there's rarely been a legendary puke-inducing 'money shot' scene that hasn't been subject to saturation-spoiling shortly after it's been seen.

That's what I was going to say.

Especially with the Internet, anything worth spoiling is going to be spoiled within minutes. It's funny, actually, how so many people on movie forums get upset about spoilers when the last place someone who hates spoilers should be hanging out is on an Internet movie forum.

[balmakboor]

I'm curious to know if von Trier directed Dafoe to crack his knuckles right before the questions were to begin.

[Grouchy]

Come, now. He was British.
Malvinas-stealing prick.

[jamaul]

I like Von Trier, but I'm not too sure about this latest of enterprises. Sure, it could very well be that he's trying to say something about . . . hrm, take your pick: "Taste"; audience sensibilities; the fragility and superficiality of love and male-female relationships after factoring in our basic, animalistic nature; the sad state of the modern horror film . . . there's lotz of ways to look at this, even before one has seen the film. Hearing about the Man/Woman archetypal names, the baby falling out of a window, and the extreme violence inflicted between the two leads, I'm already thinking this reeks of the antithetical work Godard was doing (very successfully) forty years ago, and may be a dead end. Either way, all of this is seeming very exploitative, as if Von Trier is giggling to himself, utilizing the age-old excuse: 'hey, everyone, it's just a movie-film! it's just smoke and mirrors!' And for sure, it is . . . smoke, mirrors, light, camera, action . . . money, time, effort, and for what? So the silly auteur can play the role of provocateur? Has Von Trier become the filmmaker equivalent of Armond White? Hrmph.

Whats the hellz, tho, eh? I'll probably see this silly little film anyway.

[balmakboor]

I like Von Trier, but I'm not too sure about this latest of enterprises. Sure, it could very well be that he's trying to say something about . . . hrm, take your pick: "Taste"; audience sensibilities; the fragility and superficiality of love and male-female relationships after factoring in our basic, animalistic nature; the sad state of the modern horror film . . . there's lotz of ways to look at this, even before one has seen the film. Hearing about the Man/Woman archetypal names, the baby falling out of a window, and the extreme violence inflicted between the two leads, I'm already thinking this reeks of the antithetical work Godard was doing (very successfully) forty years ago, and may be a dead end. Either way, all of this is seeming very exploitative, as if Von Trier is giggling to himself, utilizing the age-old excuse: 'hey, everyone, it's just a movie-film! it's just smoke and mirrors!' And for sure, it is . . . smoke, mirrors, light, camera, action . . . money, time, effort, and for what? So the silly auteur can play the role of provocateur? Has Von Trier become the filmmaker equivalent of Armond White? Hrmph.

Whats the hellz, tho, eh? I'll probably see this silly little film anyway.

Great little post! And, yeah, I'm sure I'll see it too.

[Pop Trash]

Great little post! And, yeah, I'm sure I'll see it too.

I agree. And I don't like this whole "hey fuck you I don't have to explain shit to you measly reporer" idea. I mean, true, Hollywood makes lots and lots of crap that is never explained but Cannes is supposed to be the best of the best as far as world cinema goes. So, yes, Von Trier should explain why his film should be screened instead of the hundreds, if not thousands, of filmmakers worldwide whose films were rejected so that Antichrist could have a spot there.

[Sycophant]

I think the Cannes festival programmers should have to be the ones to answer why a film is screening at Cannes, if anyone has to answer for it.

[balmakboor]

I think the Cannes festival programmers should have to be the ones to answer why a film is screening at Cannes.

Good point.

[Pop Trash]

Clearly, no one here has taken a college level class in the creative arts.

[Sycophant]

Clearly, no one here has taken a college level class in the creative arts.

What the hell does that mean?

[number8]

I have been notified by a British commenter on my site that the reporter was from The Daily Mail, apparently a conservative and right-wing rag in England that enjoys stirring up outrage and controversy over the slightest thing that can be deemed offensive.

So I guess it was the equivalent of Fox News throwing a fit over a Family Guy episode. Or something. Whatever.

[number8]

Haha, apparently two screenings of Antichrist today had to be canceled due to technical problems.The first attempt, the projector broke thirty seconds in. Second, they had a major power outage.

Who says God isn't the best God in the world, Lars?

[B-side]

What the hell does that mean?

Yeah, that was more than a bit condescending.

[number8]

Clearly, no one here has taken a college level class in the creative arts.

Clearly, you think this means something.

[B-side]

The rich and satisfying tropes often found in Pedro Almodóvar’s films — passion, betrayal, lust, and… Penélope Cruz, lots of Penélope Cruz — are on display in his latest, Broken Embraces.

...

Since Broken Embraces is a film-within-a-film, Almodóvar can’t help but making grand pronouncements on cinema. “I wanted to add the last scene, the last sentence, Films always have to be finished even if done blindly, because I fully believe the cinema can be made more perfect,” he said. “In the cinema everything works out. Directors must get through it to the end. For me a film has to be fully respected.”

Judging by the positive press reaction to the screening, his film has received just that.

Full article. (http://www.movieline.com/2009/05/broken-embraces-pedro-almodovar-on-how-to-direct-with-your-tongue.php)

Palm d'Or?

[Boner M]

Full article. (http://www.movieline.com/2009/05/broken-embraces-pedro-almodovar-on-how-to-direct-with-your-tongue.php)

Palm d'Or?
It's getting a merely warm response elsewhere. Of course, perhaps it's my bias speaking, as I couldn't be less interested in this.

[MacGuffin]

Wild Grass ('09 Resnais): ??? In its unobtrusive way, this may be among the 10 or 20 strangest films I've ever seen. I am clueless.


Full article. (http://www.movieline.com/2009/05/broken-embraces-pedro-almodovar-on-how-to-direct-with-your-tongue.php)

Palm d'Or?


What may be my only remaining chance to see the Almodóvar conflicts with the sole Market screening of an Anspach film starring S. Testud.
(My only remaining chance for the Almodóvar *here*, obviously. It's coming out in the fall. Which has me leaning toward Sylvie & Solveig.)
Also a factor: Nobody really seems to like BROKEN EMBRACES much.

http://twitter.com/gemko

[B-side]

http://twitter.com/gemko

Yeah, I read that. Interesting. I don't have much experience with following Cannes closely, but is the reception of the films usually this indifferent? Nobody seems thrilled about anything. Antichrist stirred people up, but is it really being praised much?

[baby doll]

Palme d'Or?It's pretty rare that the festival's designated crowd-pleaser takes home the top prize. Then again, I don't think it'll go to Anti-Christ, either. Who knows? That's the fun of Cannes, that it isn't predictable like the Oscars.

[MacGuffin]

Then again, I don't think it'll go to Anti-Christ, either.

It won't. France hates it.

[baby doll]

Yeah, I read that. Interesting. I don't have much experience with following Cannes closely, but is the reception of the films usually this indifferent? Nobody seems thrilled about anything. Antichrist stirred people up, but is it really being praised much?That's par for the course at this point.

[baby doll]

It won't. France hates it.It might win something--a jury prize, perhaps. I'll see it either way.

[MacGuffin]

Speculative predictions:

Palme d'Or: Enter the Void, Gaspar Noé
Grand Prix: The White Ribbon, Michael Haneke*
Prix du Jury: Visage, Ming-liang Tsai
Palme d'Or du court métrage: No ideas, any guesses?
Prix d'interprétation féminin: Charlotte Gainsbourg, Antichrist
Prix d'interprétation masculin: No idea, any guesses?
Prix de la mise en scène: Jane Campion, Bright Star
Prix du scénario: Jacques Audiard et al, A Prophet**
Prix Un Certain Regard: Nang mai, Pen-ek Ratanaruang***
Camera d'Or: Benoît Debie, Enter the Void

The rest I don't think I care about unless you convince me otherwise.

*Picked up by Sony Classics! (http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/cannes-sony-classics-picks-up-2-pics/)
**Maybe I'm selling this one short a bit, as it seems to have gotten a lot of praise, or maybe that's just because it's French. Either way, my list is a mixture of things I want to see and things I think we will see.
***An educated guess. Really anything but Lee Daniel's Precious I'm okay with. That movies looks horrifically awful.

[MacGuffin]

It might win something--a jury prize, perhaps. I'll see it either way.

Yes.

[baby doll]

Really anything but Lee Daniel's Precious I'm okay with. That movies looks horrifically awful.Sundance buzz notwithstanding, I actually want to see this.

[MacGuffin]

Sundance buzz notwithstanding, I actually want to see this.

Are you out of your fucking mind? Did you not see the trailer? This the lowest you've ever sunk.

[baby doll]

Are you out of your fucking mind? Did you not see the trailer? This the lowest you've ever sunk.I haven't seen the trailer, but when it comes to representations of African-American life in cinema, anything that isn't a broad stereotype or Tyler Perry is automatically going to be of interest.

[MacGuffin]

I haven't seen the trailer, but when it comes to representations of African-American life in cinema, anything that isn't an offensive stereotype or Tyler Perry is automatically of interest.

Watch the trailer and get back to me. Seriously, you'll thank me.

[baby doll]

Watch the trailer and get back to me. Seriously, you'll thank me.I've read some reviews, so I have an idea of what it'll be about.

[MacGuffin]

I've read some reviews, so I have an idea of what it'll be about.

The trailer has one of those taglines along the lines of "everybody wants to be loved". Don't play this game.

[B-side]

Oooh. It somehow slipped my mind that Haneke and Ming-liang's latest films are premiering at Cannes. Something tells me both will walk away with something.

[baby doll]

The trailer has one of those taglines along the lines of "everybody wants to be loved". Don't play this game.So, who cares about the tagline?

[MacGuffin]

So, who cares about the tagline?

Well, in the context of the trailer...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN0OriOxb1Q

[baby doll]

Well, in the context of the trailer...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN0OriOxb1QOkay, I saw the trailer. It looks even crazier than Anti-Christ.

[MacGuffin]

Okay, I saw the trailer. It looks even crazier than Anti-Christ.

In a bad way, I'm hoping. (It's produced by Tyler Perry, as you can see; so the thought process that it will avoid black stereotypes simply isn't going to fly.)

[number8]

That trailer is great.

[baby doll]

In a bad way, I'm hoping. (It's produced by Tyler Perry, as you can see; so the thought process that it will avoid black stereotypes simply isn't going to fly.)Why would you hope that?

And there's a difference between a film that portrays African-Americans in a stereotypical light, and one that confronts the problems facing the community in a very direct way--as opposed to the blandly positive images of middle-class black people that I grew up with on "The Cosby Show" and "Family Matters." There really is a problem in the African-American community with weight and dieting, just to take one example from the trailer, and my hope for the film is that it confronts this in a very direct and honest way.

[MacGuffin]

Why would you hope that?

And there's a difference between a film that portrays African-Americans in a stereotypical light, and one that confronts the problems facing the community in a very direct way--as opposed to the blandly positive images of middle-class black people that I grew up with on "The Cosby Show" and "Family Matters." There really is a problem in the African-American community with weight and dieting, just to take one example from the trailer, and my hope for the film is that it confronts this in a very direct and honest way.

Who knows? Maybe it will confront it so directly that it will sweep all the Oscars.

[baby doll]

Who knows? Maybe it will confront it so directly that it will sweep all the Oscars.Now you're just being unfair.

[MacGuffin]

Now you're just being unfair.

No, I'm being reasonable. I have priorities. Watching a movie about a fat black girl who has a hard life because she is pregnant and her mom beats her and all she wants is someone to love is not one of them.

[baby doll]

No, I'm being reasonable. I have priorities. Watching a movie about a fat black girl who has a hard life because she is pregnant and her mom beats her and all she wants is someone to love is not one of them.Considering how few American films even have female protagonists, let alone fat, black ones, I'd much rather see one film like this than a thousand mumblecores. (Actually, the new Bujalski, Beeswax, is soundin' pretty good to me.)

[MacGuffin]

Considering how few American films even have female protagonists, let alone fat, black ones, I'd much rather see one film like this than a thousand mumblecores. (Actually, the new Bujalski, Beeswax, is soundin' pretty good to me.)

Well, I don't like any of the "mumblecore" movies I have seen. Yet, I'd still rather get to Baghead (which actually looks pretty good) or even Funny Ha Ha than watch this. There are so many movies playing out of Cannes this year not to mentions the millions of others movies I could be watching as oppose to seeing this.

[number8]

By the by, both Tyler Perry and Oprah latched onto the film after it was sold at Sundance. So to cast the shadow of Perry's usual output over it is the equivalent of expecting Hero to be like a Tarantino film.

[MacGuffin]

By the by, both Tyler Perry and Oprah latched onto the film after it was sold at Sundance. So to cast the shadow of Perry's usual output over it is the equivalent of expecting Hero to be like a Tarantino film.

Forgive me. It still looks like shit.

[baby doll]

Well, I don't like any of the "mumblecore" movies I have seen. Yet, I'd still rather get to Baghead (which actually looks pretty good) or even Funny Ha Ha than watch this. There are so many movies playing out of Cannes this year not to mentions the millions of others movies I could be watching as oppose to seeing this.Funny Ha Ha is okay for what it is: a Sandra Dee romantic comedy. Mutual Appreciation is painfully slight and indulgent. I haven't seen any other Mumblecore films, but I'm tempted every time I walk in the video store to rent Dance Party, USA and Quiet City because I'm a sucker for both dance parties and a two-for-one deal.

When it comes to other movies at Cannes, the ones I'm looking forward to are the most audacious: the Mendoza, the Trier and the Daniels. (The Campion and the Loach, not so much.) Also, I still haven't caught up with Daniels' debut, Shadow Boxer, which had Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Helen Mirren in a hit-man update of Fear Eats the Soul. Timid, he ain't.

[number8]

Forgive me. It still looks like shit.

I am not passing this message on to Mr. Perry.

[Bosco B Thug]

Watched the first half of that 'Anti-Christ' press conference earlier today. Von Trier (and Dafoe and Gainsbourg) aren't the best or most sharing or friendliest interviewees, but Von Trier said or did nothing that I thought cast him in a negative light. Especially regarding that first question, he gave all the answer he needed to to that first reporter, who was seriously just an ass.

Well, I take it back, his attitude when asked about Argento was a bit rude. Did he just not understand the question? Because I would've appreciated at least a brief statement on how familiar he is with Argento (or not familiar), before him acting in such a way that suggests he's so offended by the comparison.

[number8]

Well, I take it back, his attitude when asked about Argento was a bit rude. Did he just not understand the question? Because I would've appreciated at least a brief statement on how familiar he is with Argento (or not familiar), before him acting in such a way that suggests he's so offended by the comparison.

I didn't think he look offended. I got the impression that he's never even heard of Argento and was baffled by the comparison. I've seen similar reaction before.

[Bosco B Thug]

I didn't think he look offended. I got the impression that he's never even heard of Argento and was baffled by the comparison. I've seen similar reaction before.
Yeah, I had considered it might be just that, that he's actually not quite sure who Argento is, considering his eventual reply just goes straight back to pushing Tarkovsky.

[Sycophant]

What the hell with this Precious nonsense? Jesus.

The trailer looks like a goddamned movie trailer, so whatever. The visuals don't look bad. The moments look a little cliché, but I can't find a bad word about it. Alex Jackson liked it when he saw it at Sundance.

Didn't know about it till about an hour ago. Totally looking forward to seeing it.

[Ezee E]

Still have Haneke, Tarantino, Noe to go. Johnny To's movie seemed underwhelming, while Ken Loach's movie seems pretty well-liked all around. A bit moreso than Almodovar's.

[Watashi]

I'll back up Clipper. Precious looks like vomit-inducing crap. Something that Todd Solondz wouldn't even touch.

D'Angelo walked out of it.

[baby doll]

D'Angelo walked out of it.Oh, now I definitely want to see it.

[Watashi]

The early word for Inglourious Basterds is pretty positive. They say it's very long and has minimal action compared to many lengthy dialogue scenes (well, duh), and the ending is absolutely silly (in a good way).

[Bosco B Thug]

The early word for Inglourious Basterds is pretty positive. They say it's very long and has minimal action compared to many lengthy dialogue scenes (well, duh), and the ending is absolutely silly (in a good way).
Fo sho. Although no real film snobs chimed in yet (read: D'Angelo).

Twitter buzz: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/05/20/...ious-basterds/

Empire review: http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=24863

[MacGuffin]

Update:


Inglourious Basterds ('09 Tarantino): 60/B- What an odd little (yes, little) exercise in vicarious wish fulfillment. He's in 2nd gear here.

http://twitter.com/gemko

[Ezee E]

Wild Grass ('09 Resnais): ??? In its unobtrusive way, this may be among the 10 or 20 strangest films I've ever seen. I am clueless.

heh.

[MacGuffin]

heh.

Yeah, I saw that. Weird how almost half of his comments in the Twitter for Cannes premieres are ambiguous.

[Bosco B Thug]

Update:
Inglourious Basterds ('09 Tarantino): 60/B- What an odd little (yes, little) exercise in vicarious wish fulfillment. He's in 2nd gear here.
http://twitter.com/gemko
Damn. He loves Death Proof, too.

[Pop Trash]

Speculative predictions:

Palme d'Or: Enter the Void, Gaspar Noé



Seriously?

[balmakboor]

Damn, if I didn't know anything about it, that Antichrist trailer made me really want to see it. And that D'Angelo review had a strange effect. He had me convinced that it is an interesting and worthwhile movie. A sort of experiment in just getting it on screen and moving on (sort of like cinematic automatic writing). And then I was surprised to see him give it a D+.

Hmmm.

[Pop Trash]

Damn, if I didn't know anything about it, that Antichrist trailer made me really want to see it. And that D'Angelo review had a strange effect. He had me convinced that it is an interesting and worthwhile movie. A sort of experiment in just getting it on screen and moving on (sort of like cinematic automatic writing). And then I was surprised to see him give it a D+.

Hmmm.

Yeah I get the feeling that objectively and critically mindedly speaking, he didn't think it was a good movie, but subjectively he rather liked it, or at least liked that it exists at all.

[Grouchy]

The last Resnais movie before this one (Coeurs) is fucking terrible. One of the worst things I've ever seen by a good director.

[jamaul]

I'm a little disappointed by the reaction towards Tarantino's new film. While I figured there would indeed be detractors, and having read some of the script, I anticipated some negative reaction (including my own -- unless QT was on to something I wasn't able to translate in his sophomoric, typo-filled writing), but I'm really surprised at how uninspired this initial reaction is. The major criticism I've read is that it has . . . too much dialogue? Is that not in fact the key reason many of his fans, including the bulk of the critical community, have lavished heaping amounts of praise upon this once-thought wunderkind? Another criticism: not enough action? Whe? Since when have the crème de la crème of our critical community, bestowed with oh-so coveted tickets to the crème de la crème of Film Festivals, become contradictory American Idol judges? Most of what I've skimmed through from the festival has read more as frantic, poorly thought-out gibberish than scholarly insight. I guess it's the feverish, sleep-deprived, red bull-induced writing one would expect in a post-blogger society. None of what I've read so far sounds like it couldn't have been derived from watching the trailer, reading the script and reading a couple of Tarantino's most recent interviews. Anywayz, one man's thoughts.

[Pop Trash]

@ Jamal: Yeah I know what you mean. I think it's best to wait until the dust is settled and read the more in depth critiques that will come out later. Film Comment usually has a pretty good round up of Cannes, so I look forward to reading their thoughts (even though there is always some weird critiques in Film Comment like Amy Taubin's odd venemous anger towards Toback's Tyson last year, which I think had more to do with her being angry that someone dared to make a sympathetic look at a convicted rapist than the quality of the film)

[jamaul]

@ Jamal: Yeah I know what you mean. I think it's best to wait until the dust is settled and read the more in depth critiques that will come out later. Film Comment usually has a pretty good round up of Cannes, so I look forward to reading their thoughts (even though there is always some weird critiques in Film Comment like Amy Taubin's odd venemous anger towards Toback's Tyson last year, which I think had more to do with her being angry that someone dared to make a sympathetic look at a convicted rapist than the quality of the film)

Yeah, it's disappointing to me that there's no real insight . . . everything's pretty much blurbs, and quick thoughts, when really, the trade off should be, 'hey, you get to go to this thing, now, in return, we want intelligent, instantly gratifying content reflecting the outlook on what we will have to wait months to see.' Otherwise, why do these people get to go? (I'm probably making myself sound a little envious here . . . and I wouldn't deny that I kind of . . . am.)

In regards to Film Comment, I'll definitely look out for it. Do you know where I can read their latest articles? I really wanted to read Taubin's essay on Benjamin Button, but I can't find it online, and that issue is no longer on newstands.

[Sycophant]

Weird thread is weird.

[jamaul]

Vague post is vague.

[Sycophant]

This thread has so far featured:

- People saying that we noble cinephiles wish people like Tarantino and von Trier wouldn't get their films screened prominently at Cannes, because we would be much more excited for a high-profile debut of some name we don't recognize, because we're special like that.
- CSC essentially calling baby doll retarded for wanting to see a well-received movie.
- Pop Trash making vague insults about how none of us have taken courses in the creative arts.
- Complaints from jamaul about people cramming in 10-12 hours of sitting in a movie theater per day and then only jotting down the first couple things that come to mind on films that the rest of us won't get to see for months, instead of writing profound, in-depth analyses. It is, in fact, their obligation to do so; otherwise they shouldn't go to Cannes.
- Claims that von Trier has to answer for why von Trier's movie played at Cannes, where every filmmaker wants his movie to play.
- Other weird stuff.

Weird thread.

[jamaul]

This thread has so far featured:

- People saying that we noble cinephiles wish people like Tarantino and von Trier wouldn't get their films screened prominently at Cannes, because we would be much more excited for a high-profile debut of some name we don't recognize, because we're special like that.
- CSC essentially calling baby doll retarded for wanting to see a well-received movie.
- Pop Trash making vague insults about how none of us have taken courses in the creative arts.
- Complaints from jamaul about people cramming in 10-12 hours of sitting in a movie theater per day and then only jotting down the first couple things that come to mind on films that the rest of us won't get to see for months, instead of writing profound, in-depth analyses. It is, in fact, their obligation to do so; otherwise they shouldn't go to Cannes.
- Claims that von Trier has to answer for why von Trier's movie played at Cannes, where every filmmaker wants his movie to play.
- Other weird stuff.

Weird thread.

I don't see how that's any weirder than any other forum of discussion. People have different views. I say I want more from these expert correspondents. You say I'm weird. I say you're vague. You reiterate what I said. I say this place isn't weird for having differing opinions. You say . . . wait, you havne't said anything yet, so I say go fish. Although I'll predict you'll call me weird.

[Fezzik]

I don't see how that's any weirder than any other forum of discussion. People have different views. I say I want more from these expert correspondents. You say I'm weird. I say you're vague. You reiterate what I said. I say this place isn't weird for having differing opinions. You say . . . wait, you havne't said anything yet, so I say go fish. Although I'll predict you'll call me weird.

I think it may have to do with all the ingredients being in the same thread. I've seen all those things (not exactly, but stuff in the same spirit of them) in separate threads before, but when you put them all together its like a celestial event that triggers the heat death of the universe.

[MacGuffin]

And here’s the latest results from the two trade polls, in which Audiard’s A Prophet maintains a dual pole position. (Remember, they use radically different four-star scales [e.g. two stars = “average” vs. two stars = “j’aime beaucoup”]; don’t bother comparing averages across the two polls, as that’ll only be confusing.)

SCREEN INTERNATIONAL

A Prophet (Jacques Audiard): 3.4

Bright Star (Jane Campion): 3.3

Broken Embraces (Pedro Almodóvar): 3.2

Looking for Eric (Ken Loach): 2.9

Vincere (Marco Bellocchio): 2.9

Thirst (Park Chan-wook): 2.4

Fish Tank (Andrea Arnold): 2.3

Vengeance (Johnnie To): 2.1

Taking Woodstock (Ang Lee): 2.0

Antichrist (Lars von Trier): 1.6

Spring Fever (Lou Ye): 1.6

Kinatay (Brillante Mendoza): 1.2

LE FILM FRANÇAIS

A Prophet (Jacques Audiard): 3.40

Broken Embraces (Pedro Almodóvar): 2.83

Up (Pete Docter): 2.69

Looking for Eric (Ken Loach): 2.47

Bright Star (Jane Campion): 2.40

Vincere (Marco Bellocchio): 2.08

Fish Tank (Andrea Arnold): 2.00

Taking Woodstock (Ang Lee): 1.87

Vengeance (Johnnie To): 1.80

Spring Fever (Lou Ye): 1.71

Thirst (Park Chan-wook): 1.67

Antichrist (Lars von Trier): 0.80

Kinatay (Brillante Mendoza): 0.79

Don’t Look Back (Marina de Van): 0.75

http://www.avclub.com/articles/cannes-09-day-seven,28263/

[MacGuffin]

IFC picks up Antichrist. (http://www.firstshowing.net/2009/05/20/ifc-picks-up-lars-von-triers-controversial-film-antichrist/)

[baby doll]

The last Resnais movie before this one (Coeurs) is fucking terrible. One of the worst things I've ever seen by a good director.Above = Crazy talk.

Seriously, this movie seems pretty hard to dislike: a heartfelt romantic dramedy with brazenly artificial, candy-coloured sets. It's Alain Resnais being Alain Resnais. What's not to like?

[MacGuffin]

Above = Crazy talk.

Seriously, this movie seems pretty hard to dislike: a heartfelt romantic dramedy with brazenly artificial, candy-coloured sets. It's Alain Resnais being Alain Resnais. What's not to like?

That movie does look pretty good, but for me, Hiroshima mon amour needs to come first (I've already seen the unpleasant, but nonetheless, wonderfully composed Night and Fog and Last Year in Marienbad, which I was ambivalent towards, but will probably see again when the new Criterion is released)! Actually, Resnais' newest, Wild Grass, is seeming pretty good.

[MacGuffin]

Some possible Resnais hyperbole from The Auteurs' Notebook (http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/740):


Some may remember the 2009 Cannes Film Festival for the ephemeral brouhaha of Antichrist, but time will be most understanding of all to Wild Grass, the new masterpiece by Alain Resnais. It has breathed life not just into the festival but into cinema itself, a true, effervescent delight as sad, hilarious, and wonderful as can be imagined, which is exactly the point. It is the ultimate Resnais film, an entire story, an entire cast of characters, and entire candy-colored film world all pitched as speculation. Maybe. If. Perhaps. It could be. Why not?

[Pop Trash]

- Pop Trash making vague insults about how none of us have taken courses in the creative arts.


I could explain that post more, but being the artiste that I am, I'll remain a vague basterd.

[baby doll]

Some possible Resnais hyperbole from The Auteurs' Notebook (http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/740):No, that sounds about right. So far it's easily the movie I'm most excited to see from the official line-up. Bong Joon-ho's Mother also sounds interesting.

[Pop Trash]

In regards to Film Comment, I'll definitely look out for it. Do you know where I can read their latest articles? I really wanted to read Taubin's essay on Benjamin Button, but I can't find it online, and that issue is no longer on newstands.

I think you can backorder it off their website. I have that copy, but I was a little disappointed FC was so into Benjamin Button since I found it rather mediocre (aside from the splendid visuals) But Taubin, Kent Jones, and Gavin Smith are big Fincher fanboys/girls, so I guess it was to be expected. However it didn't even make the top twenty of their critics poll, so obviously other critics agree with me.

[baby doll]

I think you can backorder it off their website. I have that copy, but I was a little disappointed FC was so into Benjamin Button since I found it rather mediocre (aside from the splendid visuals) But Taubin, Kent Jones, and Gavin Smith are big Fincher fanboys/girls, so I guess it was to be expected. However it didn't even make the top twenty of their critics poll, so obviously other critics agree with me.What was so great about the visuals?

[Pop Trash]

What was so great about the visuals?
Well, they were pretty gorgeous. Plus I liked the CGI and how it was well integrated into the film and doesn't call too much attention to itself. I take it you don't agree?

[baby doll]

Well, they were pretty gorgeous. Plus I liked the CGI and how it was well integrated into the film and doesn't call too much attention to itself. I take it you don't agree?The sepia-brown art direction and dark, contrasty lighting is a predictable standby for Hollywood Oscarbait.

[Pop Trash]

The sepia-brown art direction and dark, contrasty lighting is a predictable standby for Hollywood Oscarbait.

What else has this? The Godfather? The Conformist? Yeah those movies sure suck Baby Doll.

[Grouchy]

Above = Crazy talk.

Seriously, this movie seems pretty hard to dislike: a heartfelt romantic dramedy with brazenly artificial, candy-coloured sets. It's Alain Resnais being Alain Resnais. What's not to like?
Well, have you seen it?

Because your description makes it sound good, but what I saw was a buch of reiterative, boring, overlong scenes set in some sort of fantasy world, bleached by a weird puritanical view of sex, scored to awful music and wildly overstaying any welcome it might have had. I wanted to punch every character in it and could predict everything that was gonna happen next. It's horribly bland.

[balmakboor]

Some possible Resnais hyperbole from The Auteurs' Notebook (http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/740):

Yeah, I just read that. I immediately thought, "We have a new Golden Palm frontrunner."

[baby doll]

What else has this? The Godfather? The Conformist? Yeah those movies sure suck Baby Doll.The Conformist popularized it, and since then it's been the go-to look for every Hollywood movie that wants to convince us of its seriousness by having a tasteful colour palette and sombre lighting. It's the art direction and cinematography equivalent of playing a dead musician in order to win Oscar.

[Pop Trash]

The Conformist popularized it, and since then it's been the go-to look for every Hollywood movie that wants to convince us of its seriousness by having a tasteful colour palette and sombre lighting. It's the art direction and cinematography equivalent of playing a dead musician in order to win Oscar.
What else has it? Clint Eastwood movies? I like how they look too.

[MacGuffin]

The sepia-brown art direction and dark, contrasty lighting is a predictable standby for Hollywood Oscarbait.

I like the visuals, but mostly in the first half, when the film employed the same CGI landscapes that made Zodiac as visually stunning as it was, albeit to a much lesser extent than Zodiac.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, I just read that. I immediately thought, "We have a new Golden Palm frontrunner."

It's possible, but keep in mind that we still have new movies from Tsai, Haneke (tomorrow) and Noé.

[baby doll]

Well, have you seen it?

Because your description makes it sound good, but what I saw was a buch of reiterative, boring, overlong scenes set in some sort of fantasy world, bleached by a weird puritanical view of sex, scored to awful music and wildly overstaying any welcome it might have had. I wanted to punch every character in it and could predict everything that was gonna happen next. It's horribly bland.What can I say to dispute that, except that I didn't think it was reiterative (what's being reiterated?), or boring (I was amused and enchanted throughout), or overlong (I thought the storytelling moved at a brisk enough pace)? If the scenes are longer than in most films, perhaps it has something to do with the source material being a play, and if memory serves, the scenes in Resnais' Pas sur la bouche were far longer. But the real question is whether enough happens in each sequence to justify its length, and since I don't remember any scenes going on for an extraordinarily long time, my feeling is that enough does happen. I don't think it's set in a fantasy world per se, but in keeping with the material's origins on the stage, Resnais indulges his taste for theatrical sets and lighting (it's not insignificant that the credits read "mise en scène par..."). And if the characters are puritanical (I don't think they are), perhaps that's because it's based on a British play. Anyway, what were you expecting? Pre-code Lubitsch? Anyway, I thought the characters were charming and I didn't find the story overly predictable.

[baby doll]

What else has it? Clint Eastwood movies? I like how they look too.I think Eastwood needs to spice up the look of his films as well. He has two modes: noirsh lighting with desaturated blues and greys (Changeling) or noirish lighting with desaturated earth tones (Letters From Iwo Jima). I mean, Jesus Christ, I know old people get stuck in their ways, but this is ridiculous.

[baby doll]

It's possible, but keep in mind that we still have new movies from Tsai, Haneke (tomorrow) and Noé.At the moment I'm banking on Un prophète, but who knows?

[MacGuffin]

At the moment I'm banking on Un prophète, but who knows?

Yeah, that seems the most likely so far, but as I said on another forum, Tsai's movie features Leaud, and the festival opened on the anniversary of The 400 Blows, so that may get some sort of special recognition (as I predicted earlier in the thread, Prix du Jury?) Also, it may be possible that Haneke's newest, The White Ribbon, may gets some bias as Huppert is a Haneke associate, however unlikely that sounds. Noé's newest is just wrapped in ambition: it's been in the making for ten years, supposedly, features a plot with nearly infinite potential, it's filmed by Benoît Debie, and it stars Paz de la Huerta (who I thought was really good in The Limits of Control) in, she claims, nearly even moment.

[jamaul]

Yeah, so, I think I'll just be crazy and risk any and all reputation by saying that I think Fincher is probably the best director to come out of the 1990's. And his films look better than anyone's. From an aspiring filmmaker's standpoint, his precision, attention to detail, sense of time and space, blocking, coverage, camera placement, visual strategy, direction of actors and overall translation of written material is just. plain. fucking. phenomenal. The only thing I can say to the detractors are: you wish you had his skills, so keep hatin'.

As for Eastwood, he sticks to what works. Yeah, his movies all kinda look the same, especially those of his winter years. But why not? Again, it works.

[baby doll]

Yeah, that seems the most likely so far, but as I said on another forum, Tsai's movie features Leaud, and the festival opened on the anniversary of The 400 Blows, so that may get some sort of special recognition (as I predicted earlier in the thread, Prix du Jury?) Also, it may be possible that Haneke's newest, The White Ribbon, may gets some bias as Huppert is a Haneke associate, however unlikely that sounds. Noé's newest is just wrapped in ambition: it's been in the making for ten years, supposedly, features a plot with nearly infinite potential, it's filmed by Benoît Debie, and it stars Paz de la Huerta (who I thought was really good in The Limits of Control) in, she claims, nearly even moment.What was the last Asian movie that won the Palme d'Or? Imamura's The Eel in '97? I guess the Asians are due, and Tsai has been one of the world's leading filmmakers for some time, but unless his new film gets enough positive attention to eclipse Anti-Christ as the most-talked about film of the festival, I doubt it.

I think Haneke peaked critically and commercially with Caché. (It even played in Halifax!) I doubt he'll have another popular success like that for a while, if ever. And Noé... we'll see.

Speaking of Paz de la Huerta, here's something creepy I found out: she's only two weeks older than I am, but Jim Jarmusch is my mom's age.

[baby doll]

Yeah, so, I think I'll just be crazy and risk any and all reputation by saying that I think Fincher is probably the best director to come out of the 1990's. And his films look better than anyone's. From an aspiring filmmaker's standpoint, his precision, attention to detail, sense of time and space, blocking, coverage, camera placement, visual strategy, direction of actors and overall translation of written material is just. plain. fucking. phenomenal. The only thing I can say to the detractors are: you wish you had his skills, so keep hatin'.

As for Eastwood, he sticks to what works. Yeah, his movies all kinda look the same, especially those of his winter years. But why not? Again, it works.Sure, it works, but "it works" is not the same as "his films look better than anyone's."

Anyway, some other directors who made their debut in the 1990s:

Wes Anderson
Noah Baumbach
Laurent Cantet
Bruno Dumont
Vincent Gallo
James Gray
Todd Haynes
Jia Zhang-ke
Harmony Korine
Lee Chang-dong
Richard Linklater
Julio Medem
Gaspar Noé
Jafar Panahi
Lynne Ramsay
David O. Russell
Whit Stillman
Tran Anh Hung
Tsai Ming-liang

[jamaul]

Sure, it works, but "it works" is not the same as "his films look better than anyone's."

Anyway, some other directors who made their debut in the 1990s:

Wes Anderson
Noah Baumbach
Laurent Cantet
Bruno Dumont
Vincent Gallo
James Gray
Todd Haynes
Jia Zhang-ke
Harmony Korine
Lee Chang-dong
Richard Linklater
Julio Medem
Jafar Panahi
David O. Russell
Whit Stillman
Tran Anh Hung
Tsai Ming-liang

Yes, and of the ones I'm familiar with, Fincher is the better filmmaker. His subject matter may not be as complex, his material may not be as artistically important, but as a stylist and conveyer of visual material, he is simply, err, better.

[baby doll]

Yes, and of the ones I'm familiar with, Fincher is the better filmmaker. His subject matter may not be as complex, his material may not be as artistically important, but as a stylist and conveyer of visual material, he is simply, err, better.Okay, you're going to have to back that up more. Since we seem to agree that the look of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button "works" but is pathetically unoriginal, how is Fincher a "better" visual stylist than, say, Wes Anderson whose manner of framing shot and moving a camera is far more distinctive?

[MacGuffin]

What was the last Asian movie that won the Palme d'Or? Imamura's The Eel in '97? I guess the Asians are due, and Tsai has been one of the world's leading filmmakers for some time, but unless his new film gets enough positive attention to eclipse Anti-Christ as the most-talked about film of the festival, I doubt it.

I think Haneke peaked critically and commercially with Caché. (It even played in Halifax!) I doubt he'll have another popular success like that for a while, if ever. And Noé... we'll see.

Speaking of Paz de la Huerta, here's something creepy I found out: she's only two weeks older than I am, but Jim Jarmusch is my mom's age.

I agree with you regarding Caché, it certainly gives Code Unknown: Incomplete Tales of Several Journeys a run for its money (I've changed my mind on the Funny Games movies, even if I do applaud the technical aspects of them). But regarding, Huerta and Jarmusch; how's that creepy, exactly?

[baby doll]

I agree with you regarding Caché, it certainly gives Code Unknown: Incomplete Tales of Several Journeys a run for its money (I've changed my mind on the Funny Games movies, even if I do applaud the technical aspects of them). But regarding, Huerta and Jarmusch; how's that creepy, exactly?He's old!

[Philosophe_rouge]

He's old!
I could be wrong, but I think she dated Jack Nicholson for a brief amount of time. Ponder that.

[baby doll]

I could be wrong, but I think she dated Jack Nicholson for a brief amount of time. Ponder that.Eww.

Anyway, I posted a comment on Ebert's blog (regarding Inglorious Basterds) and he responded:

Me: Maybe, just maybe, setting the final scene in a movie theatre is an homage to Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow"?
Ebert: "Doesn't sound like it might be at the top of QT's reading list, but you never know."

[jamaul]

Eww.

Anyway, I posted a comment on Ebert's blog (regarding Inglorious Basterds) and he responded:

Me: Maybe, just maybe, setting the final scene in a movie theatre is an homage to Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow"?
Ebert: "Doesn't sound like it might be at the top of QT's reading list, but you never know."

If there were any connection, I doubt it would retain nearly a fraction of the novel's poignancy. I think Tarantino has a lot in common with Pynchon, but Pynchon is far more in command of his medium; his work, in all that it encompasses, is far more aware of the world it employs into its vast narrative than anything in the Tarantinoverse.

[Robby P]

Taking one specific scene and completely divorcing it from any context whatsoever is not enough to persuade me to avoid a particular movie, no matter how gruesome or objectionable the content of that specific scene.

[MacGuffin]

He's old!

I don't think they were going out.

[B-side]

Okay, you're going to have to back that up more. Since we seem to agree that the look of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button "works" but is pathetically unoriginal, how is Fincher a "better" visual stylist than, say, Wes Anderson whose manner of framing shot and moving a camera is far more distinctive?

I'm interested in a response to this as well. Mind you, I'm no expert in the realm of cameras and their inner workings, but I know what I enjoy visually. Fincher's films have always looked more than adequate, but the best director to come out of the 90s? An amazing visual stylist? I don't know about either of those two claims. Well, I'd immediately disagree with the former. I'm interested in the details of the latter, though.

[ledfloyd]

fincher is a great technical director but this doesn't make him a great artist.

[trotchky]

fincher is a great technical director but this doesn't make him a great artist.

I don't really see the point, or the sense, in making distinctions like that.

[baby doll]

I don't really see the point, or the sense, in making distinctions like that.It seems to me a fairly straightforward assessment of Fincher's strengths and limitations as a filmmaker. He has all the money and technology in the world at his disposal, and can cover a sequence so it cuts together smoothly, but that only makes him a competent craftsperson, not a great artist.

[trotchky]

It seems to me a fairly straightforward assessment of Fincher's strengths and limitations as a filmmaker. He has all the money and technology in the world at his disposal, and can cover a sequence so it cuts together smoothly, but that only makes him a competent craftsperson, not a great artist.

How is a craftsperson different from an artist?

[B-side]

How is a craftsperson different from an artist?

Since when has an artist lived or died by how allegedly well-crafted their films are?

[trotchky]

Since when has an artist lived or died by how allegedly well-crafted their films are?

Since when has art had any legitimate definition?

Also, according to ledfloyd, David Fincher is at least one artist who has lived by how well-crafted his films are. I'd agree with that, but I'd also go on to argue that every "artist" in history has lived or died by how well-crafted their "art" is.

[B-side]

Since when has art had any legitimate definition?

Touche.:)

[Boner M]

Very positive review from Variety for Haneke's The White Ribbon:

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=festivals&jump=review&reviewid=VE1117940328&cs=1

[baby doll]

How is a craftsperson different from an artist?A craftsperson has strong technical skills, and an artist has good ideas.

[baby doll]

Very positive review from Variety for Haneke's The White Ribbon:

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=festivals&jump=review&reviewid=VE1117940328&cs=1Sounds awesome.

[Ezee E]

What makes this thread weirder than 80% of other MC threads?

[Philosophe_rouge]

Well pre mid-Renaissance or so, what we understand as artists today were merely craftsmen, that includes the likes of Da Vinci, Botticelli, and of course Andrei Rublev ;) Also, as a fan of many Hollywood cinema, I suppose I'm naturally inclined to defend so called "craftmen". I don't personally see the difference, I think part of being a truly great artist or even a truly great craftperson is to create a balance between technical and emotional/intellectual, what have you. Is something still technically great if it doesn't elicit the intended reaction?

EDIT: eh, I'm not sure if I used the right words for the last sentence. But what I'm essentially trying to say, is are meet technical skills enough? I've never understood a talented "craftperson", as merely skills, but someone who knows how to use them, to convey ideas or emotion.

[Ivan Drago]

What makes this thread weirder than 80% of other MC threads?

No mention of teh Huston?

[B-side]

Well pre mid-Renaissance or so, what we understand as artists today were merely craftsmen, that includes the likes of Da Vinci, Botticelli, and of course Andrei Rublev ;) Also, as a fan of many Hollywood cinema, I suppose I'm naturally inclined to defend so called "craftmen". I don't personally see the difference, I think part of being a truly great artist or even a truly great craftperson is to create a balance between technical and emotional/intellectual, what have you. Is something still technically great if it doesn't elicit the intended reaction?

EDIT: eh, I'm not sure if I used the right words for the last sentence. But what I'm essentially trying to say, is are meet technical skills enough? I've never understood a talented "craftperson", as merely skills, but someone who knows how to use them, to convey ideas or emotion.

I see what you're saying. I don't think there's much use, or really, anything to be gained by attempting to distinguish between the two. For me, they go hand-in-hand. Might be reaching into objectivity territory by trying to find out a difference.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I see what you're saying. I don't think there's much use, or really, anything to be gained by attempting to distinguish between the two. For me, they go hand-in-hand. Might be reaching into objectivity territory by trying to find out a difference.
For me, the only real difference would be, I think with a craftsperson the work involved is commissioned somehow. Like in Old Hollywood, films and scripts, or at the very least projects were assigned to certain directors/producers. Whereas, an "artist", in a strict sense is taking on their own projects.

[B-side]

For me, the only real difference would be, I think with a craftsperson the work involved is commissioned somehow. Like in Old Hollywood, films and scripts, or at the very least projects were assigned to certain directors/producers. Whereas, an "artist", in a strict sense is taking on their own projects.

I guess, but in this example artist seems to be synonymous with auteur, and that's a whole can of worms and semantics I don't know we wanna open.:P

[Philosophe_rouge]

I guess, but in this example artist seems to be synonymous with auteur, and that's a whole can of worms and semantics I don't know we wanna open.:P
Eh, whatever. As I've mentioned earlier, I don't necessarily think an artists or auteur, is better. Give me my Leo McCarey and King Vidor and I'm a happy duck.

[B-side]

Eh, whatever. As I've mentioned earlier, I don't necessarily think an artists or auteur, is better. Give me my Leo McCarey and King Vidor and I'm a happy duck.

Well, the term auteur seems to me to be a rather vague label. I'd wager one could consider both of those directors to be auteurs on some level.

[trotchky]

A craftsperson has strong technical skills, and an artist has good ideas.

And art (which I'd contest is as real a construct as money (which is to say, not real)) is about technical skill being used to express good ideas.

A rubik's cube is art, bro.

[balmakboor]

I've always thought that the special quality possessed by an artist is a more open channel to the subconscious than that of a non-artist. Most people have at least a trickle. Some have a steady stream. And some have a raging river. The degree of artistiness in a person is how slow or fast, controlled or out of control, that flow is.

People like Van Gogh, Mozart, Shakespeare, and, possibly, David Lynch are like Niagara Falls.

[MacGuffin]

The White Ribbon ('09 Haneke): 37. Wow, I guess people are liking this. Felt to me like having castor oil poured down my throat for 2.5 hrs.

http://twitter.com/gemko

...which makes it his least favorite full-length Haneke out of the many he has seen.

[Sven]

And art (which I'd contest is as real a construct as money (which is to say, not real)) is about technical skill being used to express good ideas.

A rubik's cube is art, bro.

Worst definition of art ever. What "good idea" is being expressed by the Rubik's Cube? As far as I can tell, the "idea" it is expressing is completely mathematical. Therefore, Pythagorean's Theorem is "art" because it's expresses the "good idea" of a2+b2=c2. Which I think is ridiculous.


A craftsperson has strong technical skills, and an artist has good ideas.

Preposterous. This assumes that ideas are not necessary to craft and that craft is not necessary to an artist.

[balmakboor]

I suppose artistiness is quite a bit more involved than being merely well-connected to the subconscious.

Going by personality types that were, as far as I know, originally proposed by Jung, an ideal artist would be an ISFP (Introverted Sensing Feeling Perceiving) aka "The Artist."

According to this system, the farthest from an artist would be an ENTJ (Extroverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging) aka "The Executive."

There would be a whole continuum of relative artistiness between the two poles.

[Sycophant]

Here's everything I believe about "art."

"Art" is short for "Arthur." Like Art Garfunkel.

[jamaul]

Oh, boy, I should not have gone there. Can I get a shout out though that Baby Doll definitely baited that one? Anyway, all of this is subjective, and no opinion is wrong. I think it's hilarious how people are trying to judge different levels of artistic value, and devalue a filmmaker like Fincher for being, eh, just a solid craftsman. Because it's just that simple, eh? Actually, I like Fincher's films for their craft and their ideas. His films strive to extract portentousness and pretense for a middle ground of incendiary craft, engaging story, and concepts/ideas which lay subtly in-between the lines, awarding those that are attentive and engage in its concepts. I mean, if we are to devalue Fincher 'as just a stylist . . . just a competent craftsman,' seriously, you gotta say the same about Hitchcock. Or Spielberg. And yes, those two have their detractors, and sure, not all of their work is up to par with their primo offerings . . . but goddammit, when they are on top of their game, they put a knife in the heart of every self-important work of arty-farty drivel that passes for "important," because it reduces its aesthetic to long, ponderous takes and inert characters played by actors instructed not to act: a cinema praised for its endurance contests.

And lastly, to the comment that the entire visual aesthetic of Benjamin Button was constructed with OSCAR in mind: gimme a break. You really think that the grueling efforts of a team of hundreds of artists is really bearing the possibility of a golden statue as the sole raison d'être of their artistic motivation?

[Grouchy]

Here's everything I believe about "art."

"Art" is short for "Arthur." Like Art Garfunkel.
Or... Art Vandelay.

I don't find it preposterous at all to say that Fincher is the best American director to come out of the '90s. I'd say the only one who gives him a run for his money is Tarantino.

But, internationally, I'd have to say Takeshi Kitano.

[balmakboor]

All of the disagreements over whether a director is a good director or not, whether he is an artist or not, whether a particular film is a work of art or not...

The most satisfactory explanation for me as to why some very movie knowledgable people think a movie is brilliant while other equally movie knowledgable people think it sucks is related to personality types. Where you fall in the matrix of 16 types determines not only the nature of what one creates but also how one perceives the creations of others. Some of us are simply wired to love, say, the work of John Boorman while others are not wired to do so.

Of course, I'm an INTP and that means I'm wired to be fascinated by theories -- such as personality types. Some people are wired to think that what I'm talking about here is bullshit.

[Grouchy]

All of the disagreements over whether a director is a good director or not, whether he is an artist or not, whether a particular film is a work of art or not...

The most satisfactory explanation for me as to why some very movie knowledgable people think a movie is brilliant while other equally movie knowledgable people think it sucks is related to personality types. Where you fall in the matrix of 16 types determines not only the nature of what one creates but also how one perceives the creations of others. Some of us are simply wired to love, say, the work of John Boorman while others are not wired to do so.

Of course, I'm an INTP and that means I'm wired to be fascinated by theories -- such as personality types. Some people are wired to think that what I'm talking about here is bullshit.
I'm wired to not understanding that "16 types of personality" thingy you pulled there.

Could you describe those 16 types?

[balmakboor]

I'm wired to not understanding that "16 types of personality" thingy you pulled there.

Could you describe those 16 types?

You can read about it here: http://www.personalitypage.com/high-level.html

It started, pretty much, with Jung's book Psychological Types.

Here is another page about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator

Basically, you can take a test consisting of questions like "If the phone rings, do you run and grab it or hope someone else picks it up?" Based on the tendencies of your answers, you are categorized based on four different type indicators. One of those is introverted versus extroverted. If you answered "hope someone else picks it up," you have introverted tendencies. There are four different indicators each with two options. Thus four squared equals sixteen.

I've taken the test, using different sets of questions each time, at three different points in my life and have always been placed squarely in the INTP type designation.

[Melville]

All of the disagreements over whether a director is a good director or not, whether he is an artist or not, whether a particular film is a work of art or not...

The most satisfactory explanation for me as to why some very movie knowledgable people think a movie is brilliant while other equally movie knowledgable people think it sucks is related to personality types. Where you fall in the matrix of 16 types determines not only the nature of what one creates but also how one perceives the creations of others. Some of us are simply wired to love, say, the work of John Boorman while others are not wired to do so.

Of course, I'm an INTP and that means I'm wired to be fascinated by theories -- such as personality types. Some people are wired to think that what I'm talking about here is bullshit.
I think that's pretty easily refuted. I'm INT (50-50 P and J), but my taste is quite different from yours (e.g., I don't care for Boorman). And my friends all have very similar types, but my taste is drastically different from theirs.

[balmakboor]

I think that's pretty easily refuted. I'm INT (50-50 P and J), but my taste is quite different from yours (e.g., I don't care for Boorman). And my friends all have very similar types, but my taste is drastically different from theirs.

Drats Charlies Brown.

Of course, this doesn't take into account one of us being significantly more movie knowledgable than the other. Most likely you. :)

[balmakboor]

I think that's pretty easily refuted. I'm INT (50-50 P and J), but my taste is quite different from yours (e.g., I don't care for Boorman). And my friends all have very similar types, but my taste is drastically different from theirs.

Being a sort of INTP type yourself, what explanations have occurred to you as to why two smart people like ourselves could have such divergent opinions on the films of Boorman, for instance?

Are you leaning more toward the nurture side of the nature vs nurture debate? I wasn't so much born to like Boorman as I have accumulated experiences that have shaped me into a Boorman fan.

[ledfloyd]

i agree with all the talk that craft is necessary for art and vice versa. hitchcock could be derided as a 'craftsperson' i suppose.

i was merely trying to suggest that while fincher's films are well shot and cut, aside from zodiac i haven't been significantly moved by his films, at least not in any real way. i was using technical in the sense the oscars do. fincher's cinematography, editing, art direction, visual effects, sound effects, etc are all very impressive to me. the films themselves don't impress me as much.

[Grouchy]

Interesting stuff. I got ENFP.

[Sycophant]

Do they have a four-letter designation for people who don't have the patience to complete one of those long-ass personality tests in no small part because they are susepct of their utility/don't give a shit?

[Qrazy]

Do they have a four-letter designation for people who don't have the patience to complete one of those long-ass personality tests in no small part because they are susepct of their utility/don't give a shit?

LAZY

[Sycophant]

YEAH

[Pop Trash]

So incedently, I tried watching Benjamin Button again last night to see if I missed anything the first time and I couldn't even get through it. It feels sooo long. And it never really says much about anything (yeah, yeah time and aging but I could have got that from reading a synopsis) And all those folksy voice overs and negroes! Boy howdy! It still looks purty though.

[MacGuffin]

So incedently, I tried watching Benjamin Button again last night to see if I missed anything the first time and I couldn't even get through it. It feels sooo long. And it never really says much about anything (yeah, yeah time and aging but I could have got that from reading a synopsis) And all those folksy voice overs and negroes! Boy howdy! It still looks purty though.

I have a feeling I'll like it even less a second time.

[trotchky]

Worst definition of art ever. What "good idea" is being expressed by the Rubik's Cube? As far as I can tell, the "idea" it is expressing is completely mathematical. Therefore, Pythagorean's Theorem is "art" because it's expresses the "good idea" of a2+b2=c2. Which I think is ridiculous.



Preposterous. This assumes that ideas are not necessary to craft and that craft is not necessary to an artist.

How about we just say art has no meaning and cut the semantic bullshit?

[MacGuffin]

How about we just say art has no meaning and cut the semantic bullshit?

This is absolutely false.

[trotchky]

This is absolutely false.

Don't agree. What is art?

To clarify: it's not that I think works have no meaning, it's that I think art as a concept has no meaning.

[MacGuffin]

Don't agree. What is art?

Who cares? All I know is that it usually means something, like most things.

[trotchky]

Who cares? All I know is that it usually means something, like most things.

Most things don't mean much, I reckon.

[MacGuffin]

Most things don't mean much, I reckon.

Everything means something, just some things more evident or important than others.

[jamaul]

Art is mankind's answer to our Creator's question, posed in our very creation.

As for Benjamin Button, yeah, I didn't like it either, when I first saw it. I find myself reverting backwards on my opinion, and I think I will write further analysis of its value and post it in the necessary thread relating to said film.

[trotchky]

Everything means something, just some things more evident or important than others.

Some things are social constructs and don't have any inherent meaning other than what we assign them. Art, for example.

[trotchky]

Art is mankind's answer to our Creator's question, posed in our very creation.

Deep.

[Winston*]

Argh! "What is art" discussions! Kill it! Burn it!

[Sycophant]

Argh! "What is art" discussions! Kill it! Burn it!

4 REAL.

[Qrazy]

Some things are social constructs and don't have any inherent meaning other than what we assign them. Art, for example.

Art has been assigned a meaning. It therefore means something. There are a variety of different definitions, but they all mean something. Every word is an abstraction referring to some 'thing' albeit a concept, object, etc. Although objects are themselves concepts but I digress... no word has inherent meaning.

[MacGuffin]

No offense, but can we please stay on topic in here?

[Duncan]

I just drank two bottles of wine then watched my a book of poetry written by some Russian who, the fucking idiot, got himself shot in a duel at 37, fly into a lake. Then I microwaved the book to dry it out. So don't try to tell me that art has no meaning motherfucker. Social construct my ass. As if there's no inner certainty, as if we can't decide. That's crazy. I mean what the fuck are you people talking about. Happy Thursday.

P.S. This is the best post I've ever written. I'm sure of it. No way I'll regret submitting this reply.

[trotchky]

I just drank two bottles of wine then watched my a book of poetry written by some Russian who, the fucking idiot, got himself shot in a duel at 37, fly into a lake. Then I microwaved the book to dry it out. So don't try to tell me that art has no meaning motherfucker. Social construct my ass. As if there's no inner certainty, as if we can't decide. That's crazy. I mean what the fuck are you people talking about. Happy Thursday.

P.S. This is the best post I've ever written. I'm sure of it. No way I'll regret submitting this reply.

No shit, individual works have meaning to individual people. That's not what I'm contesting. I'm saying the concept of "art" is a (bourgeois) construct that divides human creation based on a false binary, and serves more to obstruct the validity of our experiences with works than bolster it.

[Sycophant]

You're a good man, Duncan.

[jamaul]

I just drank two bottles of wine then watched my a book of poetry written by some Russian who, the fucking idiot, got himself shot in a duel at 37, fly into a lake. Then I microwaved the book to dry it out. So don't try to tell me that art has no meaning motherfucker. Social construct my ass. As if there's no inner certainty, as if we can't decide. That's crazy. I mean what the fuck are you people talking about. Happy Thursday.

P.S. This is the best post I've ever written. I'm sure of it. No way I'll regret submitting this reply.

For the record, if you find it such a necessary thing to dabble in such various topicks as descriped hereto, and as such I have found that in such instances it is usually essential to go about in the area of everything by which has been prior to what previously it would be agreed upon, at least by me the henceforth aforementioned answer to ancestral acolytes accordingly allocate an already, albeit, aggravating assumption. But I digress.

[Qrazy]

No shit, individual works have meaning to individual people. That's not what I'm contesting. I'm saying the concept of "art" is a (bourgeois) construct that divides human creation based on a false binary, and serves more to obstruct the validity of our experiences with works than bolster it.

http://www.bloodgod.com/images/stfu.jpg

[Qrazy]

You're a good man, Derek.

Duncan wrote that post, drunkard.

[Sycophant]

Guys, is this conversation taking place only because Raiders is gone?

[MacGuffin]

No offense, but can we please stay on topic in here?

Please!!!!!!!!!! :frustrated:

Anyways, D'Angelo gave The Time That Remains a 70.

[Qrazy]

Guys, is this conversation taking place only because Raiders is gone?

It's taking place because I'm full of self-loathing.

[Sycophant]

It's taking place because I'm full of self-loathing.

Awesome! Dude! Self-loathing high-five!

[Qrazy]

Awesome! Dude! Self-loathing high-five!

Any new anime viewings lately? Or rather, in an effort to keep things on topic, any new anime viewings lately that have a C, A, N, E or S in the title?

[Duncan]

But I guess what I'm saying is, would I really have microwaved the book for the sake of a bourgeois concept? Am I really that far gone? Or do I care about things? I understand that art isn't a binary entity. Who in their right mind would suggest it is? What are cave drawings? Were the people who drew them concerned about their kapital? Were they trying to get by in some medieval French village? I mean, I don't think they were. But maybe that's just me.

edit: And I'm like 99.9% sure that someone at Cannes has read Pushkin, so this is totally on topic.

[Ezee E]

Noe premiere tomorrow?

[MacGuffin]

Noe premiere tomorrow?

Yeah, I think so. Tsai, too.

[Sven]

Please!!!!!!!!!! :frustrated:

Hmmm, let's see: Duncan microwaving Pushkin or more talk of the number score D'Angelo gave a film that maybe three people here care about.

Hmmm...

[trotchky]

D'Angelo's impression of Haneke's latest is disappointing, especially since he was one of the few critics who "got" Funny Games US. Still excited about the movie.

Inglorious Basterds premiere is the only coverage I really care about at this point, although the new Noe film should be interesting.

[Bosco B Thug]

Hmmm, let's see: Duncan microwaving Pushkin or more talk of the number score D'Angelo gave a film that maybe three people here care about.

Hmmm...
Hey, until Slant starts seeing these movies, D'Angelo's... the only critic in Cannes right now. :P

Whoever's writing the Auteur website's coverage, though, is pretty good. Even though I hate critics who won't play the rating game. Principles schminciples, evaluate it numerically!

[B-side]

Oh, boy, I should not have gone there. Can I get a shout out though that Baby Doll definitely baited that one? Anyway, all of this is subjective, and no opinion is wrong. I think it's hilarious how people are trying to judge different levels of artistic value, and devalue a filmmaker like Fincher for being, eh, just a solid craftsman. Because it's just that simple, eh? Actually, I like Fincher's films for their craft and their ideas. His films strive to extract portentousness and pretense for a middle ground of incendiary craft, engaging story, and concepts/ideas which lay subtly in-between the lines, awarding those that are attentive and engage in its concepts. I mean, if we are to devalue Fincher 'as just a stylist . . . just a competent craftsman,' seriously, you gotta say the same about Hitchcock. Or Spielberg. And yes, those two have their detractors, and sure, not all of their work is up to par with their primo offerings . . . but goddammit, when they are on top of their game, they put a knife in the heart of every self-important work of arty-farty drivel that passes for "important," because it reduces its aesthetic to long, ponderous takes and inert characters played by actors instructed not to act: a cinema praised for its endurance contests.

You're really taking our lack of extreme enthusiasm for Fincher far too personally. I don't think either baby doll or I were being reductive. We simply don't see as much to be excited about as you do. I wasn't talking down to you or insisting you were crazy for loving him, I just wanted more "proof", if you will, of his alleged amazing visual prowess. I liked Zodiac, Fight Club and Se7en. The former two a lot. Still need to see The Game and Benjamin Button. Fincher is nowhere near the level of Hitchcock.

[B-side]

Art is mankind's answer to our Creator's question, posed in our very creation.

I'd really prefer we don't go there.

[MacGuffin]

The new movie by Luc Moullet looks really good. (http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/742)

[jamaul]

You're really taking our lack of extreme enthusiasm for Fincher far too personally. I don't think either baby doll or I were being reductive. We simply don't see as much to be excited about as you do. I wasn't talking down to you or insisting you were crazy for loving him, I just wanted more "proof", if you will, of his alleged amazing visual prowess. I liked Zodiac, Fight Club and Se7en. The former two a lot. Still need to see The Game and Benjamin Button. Fincher is nowhere near the level of Hitchcock.

No, no, I don't take it personally at all. This is an internets massage bored, and I wouldn't typically allow anyone's posted comments to get to me in terms of, 'ah shits, I got to prove the validity of my opinion.' My opinion is valid, because it is mine. That said, my response was directed to bring to light that Fincher's lack of auteurist street cred is really the whole of his supposed limiting factors, and it seems that people can readily dismiss him even before watching his films. For example, he makes big budget entertainments, he doesn't write his own films, he's definitely a 'studio filmmaker.' It's safe to dismiss the likes of Fincher because of those factors, as well as the genres by which he delves in. Someone earlier said that they aren’t the biggest fan of Fincher because he fails to engage them emotionally. Now, I rarely find myself moved to tears in a Fincher film, but I have found his ability to thrill me, creep me out, make me laugh, intrigue me (all of these very real emotions I’ve engaged with his various films), just as good as anyone else’s. But I think we have a tendency to take for granted the more frivolous emotional attributes that appear at first not to be nearly as important as those that inspire tears, existential dread, or the type of hopelessness that defines many a conundrum in our very being.

My biggest mistake here was making such a definitive statement, reducing my opinion to sounding as if I follow Fincher and none other, that he can do no wrong. There are plenty of better films, than those by Fincher -- plenty made even within the same calendar year as his own. While I would rank Button and Zodiac high up on their respected year-end lists, they do not rank as number one. What I was saying, really, was that Fincher's talent as a filmmaker, and all that implies (for anyone who's set foot on any kind of set and understands the grueling process of filmmaking, from the director's perspective), I feel that his ability to utilize his tools and his resources is simply beyond that of any filmmaker I can think of to come out of the 1990s. With Zodiac and Button, he is now working with content that nearly matches his style and I believe he is on the verge of maybe creating that perfect symbiosis of style+content that is an essential quality of the best of films.

I think the dismissive comments made by baby doll (although I do respect her opinions in most cases) is what was the cause of my prior statements. But, if you feel like me, I would love to put this issue to bed and get on to more exciting discussion, like, what potentially great films have the best chance of nabbing that Palme D'Or.

[jamaul]

I'd really prefer we don't go there.

"And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart, till the Devil whispered behind the leaves 'It's pretty, but is it Art?'"

[Pop Trash]

Wait...Baby Doll is female? Or was Jamaul just confused by his/her MC name?

[Pop Trash]

D'Angelo's impression of Haneke's latest is disappointing, especially since he was one of the few critics who "got" Funny Games US. Still excited about the movie.


I'm pretty sure I "got" it too. I just thought Haneke's points were crap. I think other critics "got" it as well, they just feel the same way I do. Nick Schager to name one.

[balmakboor]

Wait...Baby Doll is female? Or was Jamaul just confused by his/her MC name?

I'm pretty sure Jamual was just confused by the user name.

[jamaul]

I'm pretty sure Jamual was just confused by the user name.

Well, I was not only imagining that she was female, but that she had the beauty and likeness of a young Kirsten Dunst, circa 2006.

[MacGuffin]

Manohla Dargis calls Noé's latest: "exceptional". (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/a-filmmakers-film/?hp)

[MacGuffin]

Screen Daily also loves the new Noé movie. (http://www.screendaily.com/enter-the-void/5001692.article)

[baby doll]

So there really isn't a front-runner at this point. Cool. I can't wait to see the awards. Does anyone know where I could watch it online (with English translation, of course)?

[MacGuffin]

So there really isn't a front-runner at this point. Cool. I can't wait to see the awards. Does anyone know where I could watch it online (with English translation, of course)?

Probably on the Cannes website, where I'm watching all the press conferences. Then again, it may not show up on the site until after (along with the first five minutes of every movie in competition).

[MacGuffin]

New York Magazine predicts winners, declares The White Ribbon the frontrunner. (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/05/cannes_the_awards_outlook.html )

[baby doll]

New York Magazine predicts winners, declares The White Ribbon the frontrunner. (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/05/cannes_the_awards_outlook.html )Maybe this is stupid because I haven't seen any of the films, but I'm kind of pulling for Alain Resnais. He's probably the greatest living French filmmaker (the only other contender is Jacques Rivette; Godard is Swiss), and who knows, this could be his last film.

[MacGuffin]

Maybe this is stupid because I haven't seen any of the films, but I'm kind of pulling for Alain Resnais. He's probably the greatest living French filmmaker (the only other contender is Jacques Rivette; Godard is Swiss), and who knows, this could be his last film.

Why would it be stupid? That said, I don't think he's going to win.

[Sycophant]

It is kinda odd that people have dogs in this fight, even though they haven't seen any of these films.

[baby doll]

Why would it be stupid? That said, I don't think he's going to win.For all I know, the film could really suck.

[MacGuffin]

It is kinda odd that people have dogs in this fight, even though they haven't seen any of these films.

What are you talking about? Maybe baby doll likes Resnais movies (he does) and is rooting for the man because he's 88 years old and feels his career deserves the award.

[baby doll]

What are you talking about? Maybe baby doll likes Resnais movies (he does) and is rooting for the man because he's 88 years old and feels his career deserves the award.I am, but then it's always nice to see recognition for new talent, instead of people we already know are awesome (Haneke, Noé, Trier, Tsai).

[MacGuffin]

I am, but then it's always nice to see recognition for new talent, instead of people we already know are awesome (Haneke, Noé, Trier, Tsai).

That's true.

[jamaul]

My vote's for Basterds. I refuse to live in a world where Tarantino doesn't have two Palme D'Ors to his name.

[balmakboor]

...copious drug use, explicit sex, trippy psychedelics, and a roaming camera that briefly assumes the point of view of ejaculated semen.


Awesome!

[trotchky]

Is that Noé or Tarantino?

[balmakboor]

Is that Noé or Tarantino?

Noé

[Ezee E]

I'll venture to say that Basterds isn't going to win a thing.

I'll say it's down to Haneke, Audiard, and Noe.

No preference. Just speculation. I'll see all three of those movies though.

[balmakboor]

Actually, Enter the Void sounds fucking awesome. And every time I see a still from Antichrist, I want to see it a little bit more.

I missed it. What did critics think of the Tsai film?

[Qrazy]

So there really isn't a front-runner at this point. Cool. I can't wait to see the awards. Does anyone know where I could watch it online (with English translation, of course)?

Why of course? Judging by your sig don't you FUCKING SPEAK FRENCH?

[Stay Puft]

I missed it. What did critics think of the Tsai film?

Hasn't screened yet. Tomorrow, I think.

[Stay Puft]

Enter the Void does sound interesting. I'm not at all familiar with his work. Everybody talks about Irreversible, of course (I haven't seen it), but what about his first film? Have people seen it / do they like it?

[Sycophant]

Any new anime viewings lately? Or rather, in an effort to keep things on topic, any new anime viewings lately that have a C, A, N, E or S in the title?

Nah, not lately. Though I'm playing Final Fantasy VIII, which is kinda like playing an anime, lol amirite.

Thinking I'm gonna watch Now and Then, Here and There or whatever soon. Probably gonna rewatch FLCL in the next week, too.

You?

[origami_mustache]

Enter the Void does sound interesting. I'm not at all familiar with his work. Everybody talks about Irreversible, of course (I haven't seen it), but what about his first film? Have people seen it / do they like it?

I didn't like I Stand Alone quite so much, although the short Carne was pretty good. I wasn't a big fan of the shorts I saw from him, but I love Irreversible and cannot wait for Enter the Void.

[trotchky]

Enter the Void does sound interesting. I'm not at all familiar with his work. Everybody talks about Irreversible, of course (I haven't seen it), but what about his first film? Have people seen it / do they like it?

I Stand Alone is rather shit with a few cool gimmicks, but Irreversible is justifiably recognized as a masterpiece.

[Pop Trash]

I Stand Alone is rather shit with a few cool gimmicks, but Irreversible is justifiably recognized as a masterpiece.

Ugh, Irreversible is just a Memento rip with ass rape.

[MacGuffin]

Ugh, Irreversible is just a Memento rip with ass rape.

I'm tempted to neg rep you because you obviously didn't understand Irréversible at all, and I don't mean this in a "I'm better than you" sort of way, because I can completely understand why someone may not like the movie, but this is just straight-up reactionary horseshit. Seriously, the movies are not at all the same in the themes that they explore (Memento on memory and Irréversible on time and our control over it — and while I mention Irréversible's theme, I want to point out that Carne mentions the same theme as it, so are you comparing Memento to Carne? Because that's just even more stupid), and the style they employ (both use backwards narratives, but to say they are the same because of that implies a misinterpretation beyond recognition and also, Nolan dreams to ever have the formal control, the use of colors, and the cinematographer Benoït Debie, that Noé has) and finally, to say you didn't understand Irréversible would really be an understatement if the above statement that you made is another one of your 'I'm gonna post the first thing I can think of without even thinking of how stupid it sounds to others' posts.

[baby doll]

Why of course? Judging by your sig don't you FUCKING SPEAK FRENCH?Just a little.

[Pop Trash]

Ugh, Irreversible is just a Memento rip with ass rape.
:)

[Pop Trash]

Oh and formal control, use of colors, etc. doesn't mean crap if your thesis is 'time destroys everything.' Puh-lease! :rolleyes:

[MacGuffin]

Oh and formal control, use of colors, etc. doesn't mean crap if your thesis is 'time destroys everything.' Puh-lease! :rolleyes:

Why not and how is that not something worth making a movie about?

EDIT: Also, that's only a tagline. The movie does so much more with its material than you are giving it credit for.

[baby doll]

I'll venture to say that Basterds isn't going to win a thing.

I'll say it's down to Haneke, Audiard, and Noe.

No preference. Just speculation. I'll see all three of those movies though.I would say Audiard's film is one of the front runners, based on all the positive word of mouth. Noé's film is, from what I've read, a three-hour experimental film, so even with Huppert and Argento on the jury, it's still unlikely. And just because Huppert has worked with Haneke (whose film hasn't been especially well received, at least from the reviews I've read), that doesn't mean he'll get the Palme d'Or as payback.

It's really hard to say. Ebert has said that the Giannoli is probably too much of a crowd-pleaser to win the top prize, and same is also probably true for the Almodóvar, the Loach and the Resnais. Similarly, the Park, the Tarantino and the To are likely too commercial. On the other hand, the Mendoza and the Trier are probably too far out to win. The Bellocchio, the Campion and the Lee are too prestigey and bourgeois. The Lou wasn't well received. The Arnold sounds like yet another kitchen sink downer from the Loach-Leigh-Ramsay school. The Suleiman could be a dark horse. And I haven't heard anything about the Coixet or the Tsai, but I'm guessing neither one has much of a shot.