Is Something Wrong with Pixar?

Friday, June 21, 2013

Is Something Wrong with Pixar?

It wasn’t that long ago that I said – repeatedly – that Pixar was the most consistent force in mainstream American filmmaking. It’s easy to see why I said that – between 2003-2010 Pixar made 7 films – and six of them made my end of year top 10 list (Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3). The lone feature in that span that did not was Cars in 2006 – and I didn’t dislike that film in the least. I just didn’t think it was at the same level as the other Pixar films. Before that span, Pixar had only made 4 features – Toy Story, A Bug’s Life, Toy Story 2 and Monsters Inc. Of those four, the two Toy Story movies rank amongst Pixar’s best, and Monster’s Inc. was merely a small notch below. A Bug’s Life, like Cars, just wasn’t quite up to the same standard. Still, during a 15 year span, Pixar made 11 films – 8 of them legitimately great films, 1 a near great one, and 2 that were really only disappointments in relation to the high water mark they set for themselves. That type of consistent output is nearly unheard of amongst filmmakers.

But now, on the eve of the release of Monsters University, it appears that for the third year in a row, Pixar won’t live up to expectations. The reviews for Monsters University are far from bad – they are very respectable, and like last year’s Brave there are some ones that call the film brilliant (I hope I concur with those ones when I see it myself this weekend) – but they don’t come close to the near universal praise the best efforts from Pixar receive. By itself, this wouldn’t be a big deal – Pixar bounced back from A Bug’s Life, even though critics preferred Dreamworks’ Antz released the same year, by giving us Toy Story 2. They bounced back from Cars, with Ratatouille – one of their very best films. The problem is this isn’t the first time Pixar has failed to live up to expectations. It’s the third year in a row they haven’t.

In 2011, Pixar released Cars 2 – and almost immediately it was almost universally considered to be their worst film. And for good reason – it was. Even if you consider A Bug’s Life or the original Cars to be disappointment, they were still fine films – hell, they would be a triumph for most animation studios. But Cars 2 was the first time I actually disliked a Pixar film. It seemed to me to be the exact opposite of most Pixar films – all action, bright colors, fast movement and lame jokes. Gone was the charm that allowed adults to love the films as much as their kids did. Cars 2 was just another animated film made for kids only, that parents had to suffer through.

Last year’s Brave was a definite improvement – and has an Animated Film Oscar to prove it – and it is undoubtedly one of Pixar’s greatest visual triumphs. The animation on display in Brave is among the best that Pixar has ever produced. But the plot and characters were a notch below Pixar’s best efforts. It seemed like Pixar was trying to copy parent company Disney’s affinity for Princess’, albeit with a modern twist. I will say one thing in Brave’s favor however – perhaps one of the reasons it was perceived to be a critical disappointment is because the vast majority of critics are men (something like 80% in a recent survey I read). I know women liked Brave more than men did – which is understandable, as it is a movie about mothers and daughters (an under represented theme, especially considering how many father-son stories we get), and the film was clearly in response to the complaint that the first 12 Pixar films all had a male lead. My wife liked Brave more than I did, and my red headed niece LOVED it, in part because she never sees women with red hair in her cartoons (she was four at the time though). I’m not all that down on Brave actually – I see it akin to Monsters Inc. – just not quite at the same level as Pixar’s best, but certainly better than most animated films. But because it comes sandwiched between two sequels – one of which, Cars 2, was a critical disaster, and the other, Monsters University, seems to be merely respectable, it gets lumped painted with the same brush, whether that’s fair or not.

So what happened? It would be easy to say that Pixar completely sold out. While Cars was not the highest grossing Pixar movie ever made, and certainly not the most critically acclaimed, it got a sequel at least in part because of one major factor – merchandising. Cars may have made less money at the box office than many Pixar films, but it more than made up for it with a ton of merchandising dollars by selling toy cars to boys. A new film means more merchandising opportunities and means millions more in revenue for them – in addition to what the movie itself makes. You could argue the same thing about Brave – I have a few young nieces, and they were (are) nuts about all the Disney Princess stuff. Pixar jumps in, adds Merida to the mix, and can make even more money on merchandise. I assume something similar is at play with Monsters University – who wouldn’t want a giant plush Sully in their bedroom? Sure as hell beats a giant stuff rat from Ratatouille or a giant stuffed Ed Asner from Up.

But while this was probably a factor, it does ignore the fact that Pixar was bought back in 2006, so that’s really when they sold out, and they continued to produce great films for a few years after that fact. Plus, Disney has given control over all their animation to Pixar, so that shouldn’t be a factor. Perhaps now that Pixar has all of Disney Animation under their control, they are stretched too thin. If Pixar took over in 2006, than the great movies after that date would have already been in the pipeline. And Pixar has certainly improved Disney’s animation – Wreck It Ralph was nearly Pixar level in itself last year.

Perhaps it’s something else though. Brad Bird directed two of Pixar’s very best films – The Incredibles and Ratatouille, and he has since moved on to live action films (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol). They want him to do an Incredibles sequel, but he hasn’t been interested. Andrew Stanton directed two other great films for Pixar – Finding Nemo and Wall-E, and last year also moved over to live action with John Carter (and because of that failure, apparently he’ll do the Finding Nemo sequel). Pete Docter did one near great film – Monsters Inc. and a great one – Up. That’s almost half of Pixar’s films – not including any of the “disappointments” - directed by three men. Lee Unkrich – a longtime Pixar employee – directed Toy Story 3 – and remains the lone “one time” Pixar director to truly hit it out of the park. Brave was directed by Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman – who hadn’t directed one before – and Monsters University was Don Scanlon – another first timer. The rest of the films – five of them – were all directed by John Lasseter – and while he has two great ones – the first two Toy Story films – he also has three of the “disappointments” – A Bug’s Life, Car and Cars 2 – on his resume. Perhaps the individual directors have more to do with shaping the films than we think they do.

There is hope on the horizon however for Pixar. Bob Peterson is directing their next film – The Good Dinosaur – scheduled for release next year – and although he is another “first time” Pixar director, he has been there a long time, and was one of the people behind Up (as co-writer and co-director). At least, unlike two of the last three, it is an original idea and not a sequel. Details are slim, but I’ll hold out hope. After that comes Inside Out from Pete Docter which sounds ambitious, although all I know is that it will take the viewer “inside the mind” whatever that means. That is scheduled for 2015. And the one after that is Finding Dory – yes, another sequel – but considering that Finding Nemo is more Toy Story and less Cars or Monsters Inc. – perhaps the sequel will be worthy. After all, two of Pixar’s best are Toy Story 2 and especially Toy Story 3.

Perhaps though, this is all an over-reaction. Pixar had a remarkable consistency for 15 years, and has really only fumbled one movie – Cars 2 – badly. It’s funny how I actually think Brave is a better film than Wreck It Ralph (although it’s close), and Brave is considered a disappointment and Wreck It Ralph a pleasant surprise. That’s nothing more than expectations really – and when you’re as good as Pixar has been, those expectations are almost impossibly high. Just look at the reviews for Monsters University so far – even the ones that are “bad” essentially say that it’s technically proficient, just lacking that normal Pixar magic that elevates them above the rest of the animation field. If a studio other than Pixar made Monsters University, I would bet the reviews would be at least slightly better.

But that’s what happens when you’re so good for so long – it becomes expected of you. So fair or not, we’re all going to be asking this question every time Pixar releases a movie that isn’t one of the very best films of the year. Unfair? Sure – but it’s also the truth.

Updated Pixar Ranks:

On the eve of the release of Toy Story 3 back in 2010, I did a top 10 list of Pixar films that can be found here:http://davesmoviesite.blogspot.ca/2009/06/weekly-top-ten-pixars-best-films.html. If you go there, you can see my opinion has changed slightly since then – I’ve elevated Ratatouille and Up, and moved The Incredibles and Finding Nemo slightly down – and also had to find room right near the top for Toy Story 3, and closer to the bottom for Brave and Cars 2. There is no real reason why I juggled the order slightly - #1 is ALWAYS #1, but you can basically put 2-6 in any order you'd like, and I wouldn't complain much.

13. Cars 2 (John Lasseter, 2011)

12. A Bug’s Life (John Lasseter, 1998)
11. Cars (John Lasseter, 2006)
10. Brave (Mark Andrews & Brenda Chapman, 2012)
9. Monsters Inc. (Pete Docter, 2001)
8. Toy Story (John Lasseter, 1995)
7. Toy Story 2 (John Lasseter, 1999)
6. Finding Nemo (Andrew Stanton, 2003)
5. Up (Pete Docter, 2009)
4. The Incredibles (Brad Bird, 2004)
3. Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010)
2. Ratatouille (Brad Bird, 2007)
1. WALL-E (Andrew Stanton, 2008)

On Vulgar Auteurism

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

On Vulgar Auteurism

Lately, I’ve read a few pieces on a so called new theory of vulgar auteurism, a theory that goes back a few years that led to Calum Marsh’s piece Fast & Furious & Elegant: Justin Lin and the Vulgar Auteurs (http://www.villagevoice.com/2013-05-22/film/fast-and-furious-vulgar-auteurs/)  in which Marsh states:

“If Justin Lin fails to qualify as classical auteur—a designation still typically reserved for revered foreign and arthouse filmmakers, from Olivier Assayas to Jia Zhangke—he certainly qualifies, instead, as a vulgar auteur. "Vulgar auteurism" is an increasingly popular concept in contemporary criticism, particularly among young critics. Though it's emerged online and in print over the past several years and has yet to be granted an official definition, the term generally refers to unfairly maligned or under-discussed filmmakers working exclusively in a popular mode—filmmakers like Lin, who, despite an obvious formal command and distinctive directorial voice, are rarely discussed in a serious way.”

The piece, as well as others of vulgar auteurs, lists filmmakers like Michael Mann, Tony Scott, Michael Bay, Neveldine/Taylor, Paul W.S. Anderson, Jon McTiernan, Nimrod Antal, Walter Hill, John Hyams and others.
I have a few problems with the whole “vulgar auteur” theory. First, how the hell does Michael Mann qualify? He’s been an acclaimed director since Thief (1981), and probably entered auteur territory around the time of Heat (1995). Since then all of his films – The Insider (1999), Ali (2001), Collateral (2004), Miami Vice (2006) and Public Enemies (2009) have all gotten serious consideration by film critics – and a number of Oscar nods as well. Can anyone clearly explain how exactly Mann is “unfairly maligned or under-discussed”?

Which brings me to my bigger problem: What the hell is the difference between Vulgar Auteurism and regular Auteurism? Wasn’t the whole point of auteurism when the theory first came about to celebrate filmmakers whose work was being “unfairly maligned and under discussed”. Isn’t that why the proponents of the theory discussed the work of Howard Hawks – whose resume could look like the work of a hack to those who don’t look closely, as he made everything from screwball comedies to war movies to westerns to film noir to musicals and everything in between? The proponents found the connective tissue – both visually and thematically – that linked his varied work  that made Hawks greater than say, Sam Wood. The same is true for auteur favorites like Samuel Fuller or Edgar G. Ulmer who toiled in B movies. Or on the likes of John Ford, whose films weren’t “just Westerns” or Hitchcock who made more than “just thrillers”. This list goes on and on. In short, I don’t think we need to call them vulgar auteurs, when plain old auteur will do just fine.
I am not sure if all the directors listed really qualify as auteurs however. Personally  I thought Walter Hill, like Mann, was already an auteur (hell, the interviewed him in Film Comment when Bullet to the Head came out this year). Jon McTiernan could also very easily qualify, although I would like to see someone really make a case for why he’s an auteur, and not just a skilled action craftsman. I need to see of Nimrod Antal’s work to see if he qualifies – but what I saw in Vacancy (2007) and Armored (2009) didn’t strike me as the work of an auteur. I haven’t seen any of John Hyams movies (including two Universal Soldier sequels), so I’ll remain silent on him. I’m not sold on Paul W.S. Anderson either – and I’ve seen much of his work. I’ve seen all four of Neveldine and Taylor’s movies  - and hated all four – so maybe I’m not the best judge either, although I will say I don’t see much there beyond a penchant for shaky camera work to the point of incoherence that connects the Crank movies to Gamer and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance. I want to see more of Justin Lin’s work outside of the Fast & Furious films before I make that call. I’m not saying that none of these guys are auteurs – just that I’m not fully convinced they are.
But Michael Bay and Tony Scott are undeniably auteurs – vulgar or otherwise. To hear some people question that is ridiculous. Regardless of what you think of either director, it’s undeniable that there films represent a consistent body of work – ones that have visual hallmarks, and have thematic consistency from film to film. Being an auteur doesn’t necessary mean you’re a good director, at least not to me – although I would argue Tony Scott is, and Bay, at least in Pain & Gain, can be. Every auteur has people who hate them – but just because you may dislike, say, David Lynch, doesn’t make him not an auteur. I’ve always hated Korea’s Kim Ki Duk – but I’m not about to make the case that he isn’t an auteur. He’s s just a shitty one.

In short, I don’t think we need the so called new theory of “vulgar auteurism”. If the subject matter is all that it takes to be a “vulgar auteur” rather than an “auteur” than couldn’t Sam Peckinpah, Quentin Tarantino, David Cronenberg, John Carpenter, Brian DePalma or Dario Argento – all unquestionable auteurs – be considered “vulgar auteurs” as well. We don’t need a “new” theory called Vulgar Auteurism because Auteurism already covers it.

The Strange Case of M. Night Shyamalan

Thursday, May 30, 2013

The Strange Case of M. Night Shyamalan

In 1999, M. Night Shyamalan made The Sixth Sense, which became the surprise hit of the summer. Not only did it make a lot of money, it also secured several Oscar nominations – including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay – which is almost unheard of for a supernatural thriller. Part of the reason The Sixth Sense became such a hit of course was the twist ending – which managed to do what great trick endings do – completely shock and surprise the audience, and yet make perfect sense once it was revealed. Any idiot can come up with a from out of left fielding ending that surprises the audience – the trick is to make the ending logical, and yet also prevent the audience from seeing it coming. Shyamalan pulled that off perfectly.

My opinion on The Sixth Sense has never wavered over the years. I think it’s a superbly made and very well acted thriller and I did love the ending – but without the ending, it’s clear to me that The Sixth Sense would have long since been forgotten. It’s a very good film with a great ending. His follow-up to The Sixth Sense wasn’t as highly regarded with critics or audiences – but to me is

Shyamalan’s best film. That would be Unbreakable (2000) – another supernatural thriller with a twist ending, but this time the whole movie is at the same level as the ending. Bruce Willis has arguably never had a better leading role in his career, and Samuel L. Jackson is just about perfect as the man who guides him through the surprising things he learns about himself. I’m not joking when I say that Unbreakable reminded me of Hitchcock – and there are few thrillers that I would say that about. It is a masterful film – and it’s a shame that the film wasn’t a bigger hit, which is what led Shyamalan to abandon his plans for two sequels. Unbreakable is the perfect “Issue #1” of a comic book franchise – and while it stands on its own as a masterwork of its genre, it’s a shame we didn’t get to see what came next.

Two years after Unbreakable, Shyamlan had another big hit on his hands with Signs (2002). Again, I think this is a superior film of its genre, and while it’s easy to make fun of some of the more sincere moments in the film – and at times, the movie does take itself too seriously – it’s still one of the better movies of its ilk. It had a wonderful performance by a pre-crazy Mel Gibson, and another one by pre-crazy Joaquin Phoenix. While the ending wasn’t the shock that his first two films were – it’s still surprising. And Shyamalan had many great moments in the film that I found scary as hell when I saw them (the videos, the knife under the door, etc.).

On the basis of these three films, I though what we were dealing with was a modern Hitchcock – a director who could make thrillers that didn’t depend on gore, and could be watched even after the secrets are revealed. Yes, at times Shyamalan’s dialogue was ponderous, and the films were all a little self-serious, but still, Shyamalan did more in those three films that most directors in the genre do in their career.

And then it all went to shit.

The follow-up to Signs was The Village (2004), and while the film still made money, it almost immediately became a joke. A blind Bryce Dallas Howard wandering around in the forest, a ridiculous performance by Joaquin Phoenix, clearly phony “wolves” and the most ridiculous twist ending of Shyamalan’s career – The Village was clearly a step backwards from Shyamalan. It had all the markings on a director who took himself too seriously, and was stuck in a rut creatively. People expect a twist from Shyamalan, so he kept giving it to them. But sooner or later, your luck runs out – as it did with The Village.

Most other directors would probably decide to do something completely different at this point. And surely, this was not the only genre that interested Shyamalan – he made two films before The Sixth Sense (Praying for Anger in 1992 and Wide Awake in 1998) that were completely outside the supernatural thriller genre (and remain unseen by me).

But instead of doing that, Shyamalan doubled down. In 2006 he made Lady in the Water, and was almost universally slammed by the critics for it – and worse for him, it didn’t make much money. Personally, although I certainly think Lady in the Water is a hugely flawed film, it’s one I kind of like. It’s a strange fairy tale, wonderfully photographed by Christopher Doyle, and containing two excellent performances by Paul Giamatti and Bryce Dallas Howard. Yes, the whole film critic character (Bob Balaban) was a stupid idea – and Shyamalan had to know he was going to be blasted for it – as was Shyamalan casting himself as a “writer who will save the world” – because it shows enormous ego, and he’s not much of an actor. Oh, and calling the creatures “Narfs” and “Scrunts” was also silly. Still, I kind of admired Lady in the Water for fully embracing its fairy tale storyline – for making a completely non-cynical film in a very cynical time. It wasn’t close to great, but it’s not quite the travesty people said it was.

That would come two years later – when in 1998 Shyamalan made The Happening. If you wanted to make a straight faced parody of all the worst things about Shyamalan’s films, you couldn’t do better than this. With overly serious performances by Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel, to ridiculous deaths, an even more ridiculous twist ending, and inane dialogue about hot dogs, The Happening was the film where finally even Shyamalan realized he had gone too far – it was time to do something else.

Personally, I thought this was a good idea. In The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs and parts of The Village and Lady in the Water, Shyamalan had shown he was a good, sometimes great director. But his last three films had also shown that as a writer, he was simply out of ideas. Sometimes when a director takes a step back – and embraces a different type of movie, from a writer other than himself, he can turn things around.

This didn’t happen for Shyamalan. His 2010 film The Last Airbender is arguably his worst. Based on a popular animated series, The Last Airbender is a horribly written and acted movie. To add to its problems, it wasn’t shot in 3-D, but converted to 3-D to cash in on the recently emerged craze – this made an already dimly lit film look downright dark and incomprehensible at times. This wasn’t the only problem with the direction – there was hardly anything right about it – but it didn’t help.

Which brings us up to date. Shyamalan flirted with other projects – he was attached to Life of Pi for years, until he backed out, thinking the novel was unfilmable (Ang Lee proved him wrong, and has a Best Director Oscar to prove it). Shyamalan’s latest film, After Earth, starring Will Smith hits theaters this week. Will it get him back on the A-List? Who knows – it certainly doesn’t look great, but at this point in his career, good could be considered a major win for Shyamalan.

After Signs, it appeared like Shyamalan was well on his way to becoming a director like Steven Spielberg (I believe Time Magazine’s Cover even proclaimed him so). He looked like he was going to become that rare “star” director who could sell a film on his name alone. Those directors are few and far between – perhaps only Spielberg and Tarantino can do so right now, although one could argue Scorsese as well. But the previews for After Earth don’t even mention it’s director at all – hell, I saw multiple trailers, and didn’t realize it was a Shyamalan film until I looked the film up on IMDB. After four bombs in a row, it’s clear the studio’s marketing department sees his name as a liability.

 

But part of me is still rooting for Shyamalan. Unbreakable really is that good, and The Sixth Sense and Signs are close as well. He is a talented filmmaker – and although it’s fairly undeniable that his ego led to his downfall, as he kept plowing forward with increasingly ridiculous plots, perhaps now that he has been humbled he can make a comeback.

Looking Back at the Cannes Film Festival Lineups

Friday, May 10, 2013

Looking Back at the Cannes Film Festival Lineups

The Cannes Film Festival is almost here. Every year, the festival – still the most prestigious in the world – gives us several films we are destined to talk about for a year or more (depending on when the films get released – I’m still waiting for Jeff Nichols Mud for example which played in competition last year). I’ve seen most of the Palme D’Or winners in history – and all of them back to and including 1999 – when the Dardenne brothers took home their first of two Palme D’Or prizes. So, I thought I’d look back at the previous 14 Cannes Film Festivals – what won, what should have won, and some other special films that were in the Official lineup that year. Enjoy.

1999

What Won: Rosetta (Jean-Pierre & Luc Dardenne)
What Should Have Won: The Straight Story (David Lynch)
Other Great Films In Competition: All About My Mother (Pedro Almodóvar), Felicia's Journey (Atom Egoyan), Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (Jim Jarmusch), L'Humanité (Bruno Dumont).
Summary: The jury, led by David Cronenberg, attracted some boos when Bruno Dumont’s L’Humanite won a few prizes, and the Dardennes took home the top prize for Rosetta. Apparently, it was expected that Pedro Almodovar’s crowd pleaser All About My Mother would win – but no one told Cronenberg. Rosetta is a bleak film, about a teenage girl who just wants a job to help her out of bleak life – and ends, well, bleakly. It’s not one of their best films, but it’s damn good. Personally, I would have given the top prize to the simple, straight forward David Lynch film The Straight Story – with a great performance by Richard Farnsworth as an old man travelling across a few states on his riding lawn mower. Alas, that film went home empty handed. Alongside those two, the aforementioned All About My Mother (which at the time was my first exposure to Almodovar) and the bleak (I’m sensing a theme here) L’Humanite are also worth checking out, as are Atom Egoyan’s dark, serial killer drama Felicia’s Journey with its great turn by Bob Hoskins and Jim Jarmusch’s ever strange Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai, with Forest Whitaker. This was generally considered a weak year for Cannes – and judging by how few films I have highlighted, I guess they were right.

2000

What Won: Dancer in the Dark (Lars von Trier)
What Should Have Won: Yi Yi (Edward Yang)
Other Great Films In Competition: In the Mood for Love (Wong Kar Wai), Code Unknown (Michael Haneke), Nurse Betty (Neil LaBute), O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Joel & Ethan Coen), Songs from the Second Floor (Roy Andersson).
Summary: I’m not going to rag on the Luc Besson led jury who gave the top prize to Lars von Trier’s Dancer in the Dark – that film is a masterpiece after all, and the jury also (deservedly) gave Bjork the Best Actress prize. Having said that however, the best film is the lineup was Edward Yang’s epic Taiwanese family drama Yi Yi, a deceptively simple film and the master’s last film before dying far too young (the jury did give Yang the best director prize, so that’s something). Many would argue that Wong Kar Wai’s In the Mood for Love (routinely voted the best film of the 2000s) should have won – and I wouldn’t argue with that either (again, the film won the Best Actor prize for Tony Leung, and a technical grand prize as a consolation). But the lineup was strong that year – Michael Haneke’s first true masterwork in the provocative Code Unknown, Neil LaBute doing dark comedy with the best Rene Zellweger performance ever (not much competition I know) in Nurse Betty, the Coen’s inspired lunacy of O Brother, Where Art Thou?, and Roy Anderson’s ever strange Songs from the Second Floor, which I couldn’t explain if I tried. One of the best years at Cannes in recent memory.

2001

What Won: The Son’s Room (Nanni Moretti)
What Should Have Won: Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch)
Other Great Films In Competition: The Man Who Wasn't There (Joel & Ethan Coen), Moulin Rouge! (Baz Luhrmann), No Man's Land (Danis Tanovic), The Piano Teacher (Michael Haneke), The Pledge (Sean Penn).
Summary: Cannes, like the Oscars, sometimes gives its top prizes almost as a lifetime achievement award – and perhaps that was the case when Nanni Moretti won the top prize for The Son’s Room. Moretti is a very well regarded European director – and was perhaps considered “due”. Or perhaps the jury President, Liv Ullman, just really likes intimate character studies of family’s falling apart at the seams – he’s made enough of them. But, while I don’t consider The Son’s Room a masterpiece – it’s still a very good film. But it just so happens that the best film of the 2000s – in my humble opinion – was also in competition that year – and damn it, David Lynch’s Mulholland Dr. should as hell should have won (he did share the best director prize with Joel Coen).  Other films that are really worth a look – the Coen’s brothers comedic, black and white, film noir gem – The Man Who Wasn’t There, Baz Luhrman’s hyperactive musical Moulin Rouge, Danis Tanovic’s very dark, wartime comedy No Man’s Land (which would win him an Oscar this year), Michael Haneke’s ever disturbing The Piano Teacher and Sean Penn’s vastly underrated The Pledge – which should have nabbed Jack Nicholson the best actor prize.

2002
What Won: The Pianist (Roman Polanski)
What Should Have Won: Punch-Drunk Love (Paul Thomas Anderson).
Other Great Films In Competition: About Schmidt (Alexander Payne), All or Nothing (Mike Leigh), Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore), Irréversible  (Gaspar Noé), The Man Without a Past (Aki Kaurismäki), Russian Arc (Aleksandr Sokurov), The Son (Luc Dardenne; Jean-Pierre Dardenne), Spider (David Cronenberg), Sweet Sixteen (Ken Loach), 24 Hour Party People (Michael Winterbottom), Unknown Pleasures(Zhang Ke Jia).
Summary: Remember what I said about sometimes the Palme D’Or being a lifetime achievement award? That probably includes Roman Polanski for The Pianist, as the legendary director had never won before, and of course, he’s loved in France – even though the jury was headed by David Lynch. It isn’t that Polanski’s film isn’t great – it did win him the Best Director award after all – but this year’s competition was an embarrassment of riches. Paul Thomas Anderson’s Punch-Drunk Love (which co-won the Best Director) is my favorite by far, yet the competition also included Alexander Payne’s bittersweet comedic masterwork About Schmidt, the Dardennes best film The Son, Aleksandr Sokurov’s mesmerizing Russian Arc and Cronenberg’s complex masterwork Spider. Even films not as good as The Pianist – or their director’s best work like Mike Leigh’s underrated All or Nothing, Michael Moore’s hilarious documentary Bowling for Columbine, Gaspar Noe’s deliberately provocative Irresversible, Aki Kaurismaki’s bittersweet The Man Without a Past, Ken Loach’s urban underbelly Sweet Sixteen, Michael Winterbottom’s hugely entertaining 24 Hour Party People and Jia Zhang-ke’s wonderful Unknown Pleasures all deserved attention. This would have been one of the best years ever to be at Cannes.

2003

What Won: Elephant (Gus Van Sant)
What Should Have Won: Dogville (Lars Von Trier)
Other Great Films In Competition: The Barbarian Invasions (Denys Arcand), Bright Future (Kiyoshi Kurosawa), Mystic River (Clint Eastwood), Swimming Pool (François Ozon).
Summary: From one of the best years for Cannes, to one of the worst. The jury, headed by Patrice Cheareau, had a hard time coming up with anything to feel that passionately about – and was booed when Gus Van Sant’s controversial Elephant took home the top prize. Personally, I think Van Sant’s film is a masterpiece, and wholly deserving of the prize – but I also think Dogville is Lars von Trier’s best film, and should have won – but that also would have drawn boos. Other than that? Not much (although I really need to see Nuri Blige Ceylon’s Distant). I love fellow Canadian Denys Arcand’s The Barbarian Invasions, and Clint Eastwood’s Mystic River is one of his best films. Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s Bright Future is also underrated, and at least Francois Ozon’s Swimming Pool is a guilty pleasure. Other than that? Not much.

2004

What Won: Fahrenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore)
What Should Have Won: Oldboy (Chan Wook Park)
Other Great Films In Competition: The Holy Girl (Lucrecia Martel), Nobody Knows (Hirokazu Koreeda), Tropical Malady (Apichatpong Weerasethakul), 2046 (Kar Wai Wong).
Summary: The Quentin Tarantino led jury made headlines when they gave the top prize to Michael Moore’s incendiary documentary screed against George W. Bush Fahrenheit 9/11 the top prize – and then claimed it wasn’t about politics (which is ridiculous, since Moore’s film is all about politics). Still, it’s one of the most talked about winners in recent years, and a fine film as well. But the Grand Prize winning Oldboy – which one would assume would be Tarantino’s favorite – was the most deserving film in competition this year – but then these types of films rarely win, so we should be glad it won something. Other than that? Slim pickings. Both Wong Kar Wai’s 2046 and Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s Tropical Malady are brilliant though, and Lucrecia Martel’s The Holy Girl and Koreeda’s Nobody Knows deserve your attention. Not much else though.

2005

What Won: L'Enfant (Jean-Pierre Dardenne; Luc Dardenne)
What Should Have Won: A History of Violence (David Cronenberg)
Other Great Films In Competition: Broken Flowers (Jim Jarmusch), Cache (Michael Haneke), Last Days (Gus Van Sant), Manderlay (Lars von Trier), Sin City (Frank Miller; Robert Rodriguez), Three Times (Hsiao-hsien Hou), Where the Truth Lies (Atom Egoyan).
Summary: It seems like if Cannes has an off year, they come back strong the following one – which it what happened in 2005. The Emir Kustrica led jury gave the Dardennes their second Palme for L’Enfant, a wonderful film about a horrible father, who they see sympathetically. It is a great film to be sure – but with David Cronenberg’s A History of Violence and Michael Haneke’s Cache – two of the very best films of the decade – in competition, it should not have won. Personally, I think Last Days may well be Gus Van Sant’s best film, so that would have been fine with as well. As for the rest – lots of interesting stuff – Jim Jarmusch’s understated and hilarious Broken Flowers, Lars von Trier’s take on race in Manderlay, Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller’s over the top Sin City, the triptych from Hsiao-hsein Hou in Three Times, and Atom Egoyan’s last really good film – the tremendously underrated Where the Truth Lies. A very strong year.

2006

What Won: The Wind That Shakes the Barley - Ken Loach
What Should Have Won: Pan’s Labyrinth  - Guillermo del Toro
Other Great Films In Competition: Babel (Alejandro González Iñárritu), Colossal Youth (Pedro Costa), Days of Glory (Rachid Bouchareb), Marie Antoinette (Sofia Coppola), Red Road (Andrea Arnold), Southland Tales (Richard Kelly), Volver (Pedro Almodóvar).
Summary: Once again, I cannot help but think the Wong Kar Wai led jury gave the top prize to Ken Loach for The Wind That Shakes the Barley as a kind of lifetime achievement award. The film is very good – Loach’s best in recent years – but still, for the top prize? I don’t think so. Perhaps the fantasy elements ruled it out, but Guillermo Del Toro’s magnificent Pan’s Labyrinth should have taken the top prize this year easily. His fellow Mexican Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu also had a strong film in competition with Babel. Pedro Costa has never made an impression on most outside of festivals, but Colossal Youth should have gotten something. Days of Glory – which won the Best Actor prize for its entire cast – is a very good WWII movie, told from the point of view of Algerian soldiers. Sofia Coppola’s Marie-Antoinette is something to behold – no matter what you think of it. Red Road marked Andrea Arnold as someone to watch. Pedro Almodovar may have been cruising with Volver – but it’s a fine film. Finally the most maligned film of the festival – Richard Kelly’s Southland Tales – is one of the most ambitious films in recent memory. Flawed? Certainly. But it deserves more respect.

2007

What Won: 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days (Cristain Mungiu)
What Should Have Won: No Country for Old Men (Joel & Ethan Coen)
Other Great Films In Competition: Death Proof (Quentin Tarantino), The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Julian Schnabel), The Edge of Heaven (Fatih Akin), Paranoid Park (Gus Van Sant), Persepolis (Marjane Satrapi; Vincent Paronnaud), Secret Sunshine (Chang-dong Lee), Zodiac (David Fincher).
Summary: In what was arguably the strongest year for the competition on this list, the Stephen Frears led jury gave the top prize to Cristain Mungiu’s brilliant 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days – outwardly about two women, one in need of an abortion in Romania circa 1987 when it was illegal – but about so much more than that. It is a great choice – one of the best winners in recent years. And yet, I still can’t help but say I would have voted for the Coen’s brilliant No Country for Old Men – arguably their best film – and if not that than David Fincher’s Zodiac (which IS his best film) or Lee Chang-dong’s Secret Sunshine – a film I have loved ever since TIFF that year. Those four alone would make the competition strong – but then you have Tarantino’s Death Proof (better by itself than as part of Grindhouse), Julian Schanbel’s The Diving Bell and the Butterfly – which may be slightly over rated, but is still excellent, Faith Akin’s heartbreaking The Edge of Heaven, another wonderful Gus Van Sant rumination on young death – Paranoid Park – and a wondrous animated film – Persepolis. This year was an embarrassment of riches.

2008

What Won: The Class (Laurent Cantet).

What Should Have Won: Synecdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman).
Other Great Films In Competition: Che (Steven Soderbergh), A Christmas Tale (Arnaud Desplechin), Il Divo (Paolo Sorrentino), Gomorra (Matteo Garrone), The Headless Woman (Lucrecia Martel), Lorna’s Silence (Jean-Pierre Dardenne; Luc Dardenne), Two Lovers (James Gray), Waltz with Bashir (Ari Folman).
Summary: After an amazingly strong year in 2007, 2008 was bound to disappoint – but while it certainly isn’t as strong as the previous year, it’s not a bad year by any means. The Sean Penn led jury gave the top prize to Laurent Cantet’s The Class – one of the most realistic portraits of a teacher in cinema history. Personally, I would have gone with Charlie Kaufman’s mind-bending Synecdoche, New York, but that could just be me. The rest of the lineup? Steven Soderbergh’s Che is one of his best, Arnaud Desplechin’s A Christmas Tale is brilliant, and Paolo Sorrentino’s Il Divo fascinating. The crime epic Gomorra, the complex moral world of The Headless Woman, minor Dardenne effort Lorna’s Silence, James Gray’s fascinating Two Lovers – and one of the best animated docs ever Waltz with Bashir were also worth a look. Not quite a great year, but a good one.

2009

What Won: The White Ribbon (Michael Haneke)
What Should Have Won: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino)
Other Great Films In Competition: Antichrist (Lars von Trier), Fish Tank (Andrea Arnold), Les Herbes Folles (Alain Resnais), A Prophet (Jacques Audiard), Thrist (Chan-wook Park), Vincere (Marco Bellocchio).
Summary: The number of great films in the competition lineup in 2009 was not that many – but the ones that were represented some of the strongest films at Cannes in recent year. Frequent Michael Haneke collaborator Isabelle Huppert led the jury – and gave the top prize to Michael Haneke for his film The White Ribbon. Complain about favoritism if you want, The White Ribbon is a masterwork, and fully deserving of the top prize. But if I had a vote, I’d have gone with Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds – his best film. Add in Jacques Audiard’s masterpiece A Prophet, and you have three films that could have easily won. Other films that are certainly worthy include Lars von Trier’s controversial Antichrist – with its brilliant Charlotte Gainsbourg performance – Andrea Arnold’s wonderful Fish Tank – a movie about a relationship between a teenage girl and an older man that actually feels real, Chan-wook Park’s criminally underrated vampire film Thrist, Alain Resnais’ best recent effort – the ever strange Les Herbes Folles, and Marco Bellocchio’s artistic resurrection Vincere. All in all, a solid year.

2010

What Won: Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (Achitpong Weerasethakul)
What Should Have Won: Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (Achitpong Weerasethakul)
Other Great Films In Competition: Another Year (Mike Leigh), Biutiful (Alejandro González Iñárritu), Certified Copy (Abbas Kiarostami), Of Gods and Men (Xavier Beauvois), Poetry (Lee Chang-dong).
Summary: When the Tim Burton led jury gave the Palme D’Or to Achitpong Weersethakul’s wonderfully weird, film Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives it provoked strong reactions from all sides. Those who wanted a more “traditional” winner certainly would have approved more of Xavier Beauvois’ Grand Prize winner Of Gods and Men – which fits in better with the line of films that normally win at Cannes. But there were others who were ecstatic – that someone like Weerasethakul finally broke through and won the prize – it was precisely because it was so strange – the type of film that gets championed in Film Comment and Cinemascope, loved by a few, and not heard of by many – that it was a reason to celebrate. And so, I’ll say Burton and his jury got it right – even if part of me thinks the best film was Mike Leigh’s Another Year, and another part thinks it was Lee Chang-dong’s Poetry (Leigh, of course, already has his Palme for Secrets and Lies – and I hope Lee Chang-dong gets one eventually). But it’s also hard to deny that perhaps Uncle Boonme would not have won had the slate been stronger – aside from it, Another Year and Poetry and Abbas Kiarostami’s wonderful Certified Copy this wasn’t a great year – although Biutiful and the aforementioned Of Gods and Men are strong as well. Sometimes, things work out the way they do for a reason, this seems like one of those years.

2011

What Won: The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick)
What Should Have Won: The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick)
Other Great Films In Competition: The Artist (Michael Hazanaviscius), Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn), Footnote (Joseph Cedar), Hara-Kiri: Death of a Samurai (Takashi Miike), Le Harve (Aki Kaurismaki), The Kid with a Bike (Jean-Pierre & Luc Dardenne), Melancholia (Lars von Trier), Michael (Markus Schleinzer), Once Upon a Time in Anatlia (Nuri Bilge Ceylon), We Have a Pope (Nanni Morretti), We Need to Talk About Kevin (Lynne Ramsay).
Summary: Whether you loved or hated Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life, you cannot deny the passion it brought up in Cannes this year. It was all anyone talked about – either hailing it a masterpiece, or decrying it as a pretentious, muddled mess – there were even rumors that the head of the Festival told the Robert DeNiro led jury that if they DID NOT select The Tree of Life, history would judge them harshly. Whether that’s true or not, it doesn’t matter – the jury made the right choice, and The Tree of Life is a masterpiece. But all the hubbub around it overshadowed what was a great year for the competition. Oscar winner The Artist made its debut here (and was loved, until everyone realized everyone loved it), Nicolas Winding Refn’s dark, noir tinged fairy tale Drive, Joseph Cedar’s hilarious Footnote (the best film about warring father-son Talmudic scholars ever made), Takahasi Miike’s continued quest to find respectability with Hara Kiri, the best Kaurismaki film in years with Le Havre, a fine Dardenne brother effort in The Kid with a Bike, at least half a great von Trier film in Melancholia (okay, the second half if pretty great too – but like Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket, pales in comparison to the first half), the little seen, ever disturbing pedophile drama Michael, Nuri Blige Ceylon’s slow burn masterpiece Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, Nanni Moretti’s hilarious We Have a Pope, and Lynne Ramsay’s disturbing, brilliantly constructed We Need to Talk About Kevin. All anyone talked about this year was The Tree of Life – but there were so many great films to dig your teeth into.

2012

What Won: Amour (Michael Haneke)
What Should Have Won: Amour (Michael Haneke)
Other Great Films In Competition: Beyond the Hills (Cristian Mungiu), Cosmopolis (David Cronenberg), Holy Motors (Leos Carax), Like Someone in Love (Abbas Kiarostami), Moonrise Kingdom (Wes Anderson), Rust and Bone (Jacques Audiard), The Hunt (Tomas Vinterberg)
Summary: The sad reality is that even though this festival happened a year ago – there are still too many films that haven’t been released over here for me to make definitive calls. I’m interested in seeing Ken Loach’s The Angel’s Share, Matteo Garrone’s Reality, Jeff Nichols’ Mud, Ulrich Seidl’s Paradise Love, Carlos Reygadas’ Post Tenebras Lux and Alain Resnais’ You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet – but none have opened in my area yet. So, can I really say that the Nanni Moretti led jury did good by giving Michael Haneke his second Palme for Amour? Not really – although since Amour ranked 2^nd on my 2012 top 10 list one of those would have to be an absolute masterwork to beat it. The only three films that I have seen that compare are Leos Carax’s Holy Motors, Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom (both also on my 2012 top 10 list) and Cristain Mungiu’s Beyond the Hills (which may make 2013s). But a few other films deserve praise as well – when David Cronenberg’s Cosmopolis opened last summer, I thought I was one of the film’s few defenders – but then it did excellent on my own top 10 list survey – as well as those done by Film Comment, Sight and Sound, Indiewire and the Village Voice. It is one of the few films that continues to grow in your mind after it’s over. Like Someone in Love may be minor Kiarostami – but that’s still better than most film. Jacques Audiard’s Rust & Bone may not be as good as A Prophet – but it’s excellent just the same. And finally, after more than a decade of flailing, Tomas Vinterberg made a worthy follow-up to The Celebration with The Hunt – which will be released this summer (and I saw at TIFF).

So that’s it for now. Cannes opens next week, and already I can guarantee there are going to be some highly discussed films in the lineup – from the Coen’s Inside Daisy Lleywn to Nicholas Winding Refn’s Only God Forgives to Desplechin’s Jimmy P., to Asghar Farhadi’s The Past to Gray’s The Immigrant to Payne’s Nebraska among many others – the film year is about to get very interesting.

Cannes Festival Line-Up

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Cannes Festival Line-Up

The Cannes Film Festival announced the 19 films that will be competing for the Palme D’Or this year. Like every year, the Competition lineup has a number of past prize winners, auteurs and highly anticipated films – and some ones no one saw coming. Plus, you know that of the 19 films here, many will end up being among the most talked about films of the year. One thing I do find slightly disappointing is only one female director made the official lineup. And it's not like they didn't have options - both Sofia Coppola and Claire Denis have film in the Un Certain Regard section. Oh, well. Let’s have a look at what is up for the prize.

1.       A Chateau in Italy by Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi
This is one I never saw coming – but perhaps I should have, since her last film did win a Special Prize in the Un Certain Regard competition at Cannes – meaning she may be reading for a promotion. Interestingly, she is the sister-in-law of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. The bares bones site on IMDB offers little other than “A family is forced to sell their Italian home” – and the cast list including Bruni-Tedeschi herself alongside Phillipe Garrell and Of Gods and Men director Xavier Beauvois – so one assumes it is a part French-part Italian movie. With so many other, bigger names directors in the competition this year, it may be hard for her to break through.

2.       Inside Llewyn Davis by Ethan and Joel Coen
The Coen’s are Cannes regular – but their last three films opted instead for fall festivals (or in the case of True Grit, no festivals) instead of Cannes. They are favorites their though – the Cannes juries have embraced them more readily than many in American have. Their latest is a 1960s, New York set look at the folk scene featuring Carey Mulligan, Justin Timberlake, John Goodman and Oscar Issac in the title role among many, many others. Oh, and it’s in black and white. This is probably my most anticipated film of the year, so even if I have to wait until the fall to see it, at least we’ll have some reviews before too long.

3.       Michael Kohlhaas by Arnaud Des Pallieres
I’ll admit, I’ve never heard of Arnaud Des Pallieres before, and nothing in his filmography even rings the tiniest bell. But you know that Cannes always includes a Franch film like this – and it sounds interesting. According to IMDB, “Set in 16th century France, a well-to-do horse merchant raises an army and ransacks towns after suffering an injustice.” The film features the great Mads Mikkelson and the greater Bruno Ganz, alongside Denis Lavant and Sergei Lopez. That cast is amazing. Let’s hope the movie is too.

4.       Jimmy P. (Psychotherapy of a Plains Indian) by Arnaud Desplechin
It has been five long years since Desplechin’s last film – the masterful A Christmas Tale – and so this film immediately becomes one of my most anticipated for the rest of the year (please don’t hold it over for 2014 North American release!). There is no plot synopsis on IMDB, so I guess we’ll have to figure it out from the very strange title. But it does star Benicio Del Toro and Matheis Almarac, just in case you needed more a reason to get excited about this one.

5.       Heli by Amat Escalante
The Mexican director of Los Bastardos (which I remember seeing on the shelves back in the days when their were such things as videostores, but I never actually rented), returns with his third film. Like Bruni-Tedeschi, his last film won a prize in the Un Certain Regarde section, so he was due a promotion I guess. IMDB doesn’t even have a page up for this film yet, but from little I have gleamed, it seems like a violent film set in the Mexican slums.

6.       The Past by Asghar Farhadi
The Past will likely be one of the more anticipated films at Cannes this year, as it is Farhadi’s follow-up to his hugely acclaimed film A Separation – which won the Foreign Language Film Oscar, and made countless top 10 lists a couple of years back. This time, he’s outside Iran and in France – working with actors like Berenice Bejo (The Artist) and Tahr Rahim (A Prophet). IMDB has no plot synopsis, but it hardly matters. This will be a must see.

7.       The Immigrant by James Gray
I guess the title of this has changed from Lowlife. James Gray makes his follow-up to the critically acclaimed Two Lovers – the film best known to American audiences because it was while promoting it that Joaquin Phoenix seemingly went nuts. But, as with all Gray films, Phoenix is back – this time alongside Jeremy Renner and Marion Cottillard – who appears to have the title role as “An innocent immigrant woman is tricked into a life of burlesque and vaudeville until a dazzling magician tries to save her and reunite her with her sister who is being held in the confines of Ellis Island.” (according to IMDB). Sounds interesting.

8.       Grigris by Mahamat-Saleh Haroun
This is Haroun’s follow-up to his 2010 Jury Prize winning film A Screaming Man – and beyond that, I have no idea, because there is no page on IMDB, and I cannot find anything else out about the film. I like A Screaming Man – but didn’t love it.

9.       A Touch of Sin by Jia Zhangke
Hugely acclaimed Chinese filmmaker Jia Zhangke (Platform, Still Life) returns – and other than that, I have nothing for you, since IMDB doesn’t even have a page listed for him yet. Strangely, he has never won a prize at Cannes – will this year change that?

10.   Like Father, Like Son by Kore-Eda Hirokazu
Disappointingly, this is not a remake of the Dudley Moore-Kirk Cameron classic body switching comedy from the 1980s (I kid of course). Instead, this sounds like a really interesting film, about a man who finds out his son was switched at birth with another boy – and now has to choose between his biological son, and the one he has raised. Kore-Eda is always interesting (I need to see more of his work), and considering who the head of the jury is, who obviously has his own daddy issues, I think this could be the favorite to win the top prize.

11.   The Life of Adele by Abdellatif Kechiche
Kechiche had a critical hit a few years ago with The Secret of the Grain (2007) – but his follow-up film, Black Venus (2010) never really played outside the festival circuit, and got extremely mixed reviews.  I can’t tell you what the film is about, but I can tell you it has Lea Seydoux in it – best known for Farewell My Queen and Midnight in Paris. Other than that, I don’t have any info on this one.

12.   Shield of Straw by Takashi Miike
It used to be a new film by Takashi Miike meant something totally batshit crazy. And while I admire those bygone days, I don’t mind his recent foray into more mainstream fare. This one seems like the later, as it is a crime thriller about a man who kills the granddaughter of a powerful man, who offers 1 billion yen to anyone who can kill him. Sounds fun to me.

13.   Young and Pretty by Francois Ozon
You’re never quite sure what to expect from an Ozon film, as he hopes genres, and yet almost all of the films I have seen (and I need to see more) are interesting. This one has a simple description – a portrait of a 17 year old girl, in 4 seasons, 4 songs. Could be simple bliss or just too simplistic. No way of knowing yet.

14.   Nebraska by Alexander Payne
It took Alexander Payne 8 years to follow-up Sideways, but now only two to follow-up The Descendants. This certainly sounds like a smaller film – Bruce Dern plays a father who travels from Montana to Nebraska with his estranged son – Will Forte – to claim a million dollar prize. The supporting cast includes Bob Odenkirk and Stacy Keach. Anyhing by Payne is going to get attention.

15.   Venus in Fur by Roman Polanski
Roman Polanski returns to adapting a play to follow-up Carnage, which I quite enjoyed, but was a disappointment to many. This one stars Emmanuelle Segnier as an actress who tries to convince a director – Mathieu Almarac – that she is perfect for an upcoming role. Anything by Polanski is a must see.

16.   Behind the Candelabra by Steven Soderbergh
Apparently Steven Soderbergh’s last film – we’ll see this one before the rest as it airs on HBO in May. It stars Michael Douglas as Liberace, and Matt Damon as his younger lover. With Soderbergh, you know it’s a must see – and the fact that its playing on HBO has more to do with content than quality – at least according to Soderbergh.

17.   The Great Beauty by Paolo Sorrentino
One of Italy’s most acclaimed directors working today, and a Cannes regular, Sorrentino returns after This Must Be the Place was mainly considered a disappointment (but what a wonderfully strange disappointment) which followed up a Jury Prize win for Il Divo. He returns to Italy this time for the story of a “an aging writer who bitterly recalls his passionate youth”. That could mean almost anything if you think about it. Looking forward to this one.

18.   Borgman by Alex van Warmerdam
This is a Dutch film by a filmmaker I am unfamiliar with, featuring a cast of people I am unfamiliar with, and with no synopsis at IMDB, so you guess is as good as mine.

19.   Only God Forgives by Nicolas Winding Refn
Aside from the Coens, my most anticipated film in competiton this year. Nicolas Winding Refn’s last film was the brilliant Drive, and he reteams with Ryan Gosling to make this apparently very violent film, about drug smuggler convinced by his mother (Kristen Scott Thomas) to find and kill the murderer of his brother. Cannot wait for this one.

Winner Predictions (Just For Fun)

Remember, Steven Spielberg is the Head of the Jury this year, probably meaning we’ll see some more mainstream films than normal take the prizes this year.

Palme D’Or: Like Father, Like Son

Grand Jury Prize: The Past
Jury Prize: Only God Forgives
Director: Arnaud Desplechin, Jimmy P. (Psychotherapy of a Plains Indian)
Actor: Bruce Dern, Nebraska
Actress: Emmanuelle Segnier, Venus in Fur
Screenplay: Inside Daisy Llewyn