The Official 66th Cannes Film Festival thread

[guany]

What the fuck makes you think yours is better?

[jb]

Seriously.

[Matt92]

I hope it´s not Spielberg, I really don´t have any faith on his taste in movies. Scorsese having to reward La Vita e Bella was more than enough.

And oh, Ced, I didn´t remember Coppola did it in 1996. It was a decent winners list after all despite the hilarious Best Actor win for Auteil and his disabled co-star. I would have preferred Breaking the Waves over Secrets and Lies (which I also adore) and Emily Watson over Brenda Blethyn (duh) but well, I could live with those winners.

Is there anyone here other than me who likes Life is Beautiful?

[Shy_Hallaman]

Is there anyone here other than me who likes Life is Beautiful?

I like it too. Always makes me cry in the end.

[DBibby]

I adore Life is Beautiful. But we have to love it quietly.

[yq888]

Are the official selection all decided? I don't quite get it since the submission deadline is a month later - it is low chance, but there might be good movies that are being sent before the deadline.

If I have to guess an american president of the Jury, I will go for Tom Hanks or Al pacino LOL! How powerful is jury president - it's only one vote per person right?

Sorry I am a newbie as you can see

[moviewatcher]

Are the official selection all decided? I don't quite get it since the submission deadline is a month later - it is low chance, but there might be good movies that are being sent before the deadline.

If I have to guess an american president of the Jury, I will go for Tom Hanks or Al pacino LOL! How powerful is jury president - it's only one vote per person right?

Sorry I am a newbie as you can see

I was also surprised to learn last year the the jury president seems to hold a lot of power. Nanni Moretti apparently, didn't like Holy Motors and that's why it didn't win. This made no sense to me since he is only one vote. But...

[nadine]

Apparently Canet finished editing Blood Ties last week. Film's not coming out until October though in France. Any chance it may be going to Cannes and not Toronto first?

[Thomas]

La Vida e Bella is a masterpiece.

[Cricket]

Are the official selection all decided? I don't quite get it since the submission deadline is a month later - it is low chance, but there might be good movies that are being sent before the deadline.

If I have to guess an american president of the Jury, I will go for Tom Hanks or Al pacino LOL! How powerful is jury president - it's only one vote per person right?

Sorry I am a newbie as you can see

Hello and welcome! I'm not sure when the deadline is, but I believe that Cannes programmers watch submissions right up until the announcement in April. We aren't really privy to jury deliberations, but the common thinking is that the president has sway, but not necessarily the final word. I remember Clint Eastwood openly said that he wanted to give the Palme to Zhang Yimou's To Live, but the other jurors all pushed for Pulp Fiction. Recent presidents like Moretti and Isabelle Huppert were said to be quite authoritarian, while De Niro, for example, was apparently very relaxed and easy-going.

I would be kind of surprised to see Blood Ties in competition (maybe out?). Guillaume Canet strikes me a bit too commercial for Cannes. Then again, James Gray is one of the screenwriters, and they love him. I imagine it's also a question of whether the film would be considered French or American.

It's interesting that a number of regulars have bypassed or are planning to bypass the festival this year, like Wong, Almodovar, Dumont and von Trier. Naturally, they still have lots to choose from, but it sort of changes the landscape a bit. Then again, Thierry Fremaux doesn't seem to like the official selection to be made up exclusively of stalwarts, so he might be encouraged to look for new faces. (Though, he'll also want to be cautious, since a number of his "gambles" last year didn't pay off.)

[nadine]

I would be kind of surprised to see Blood Ties in competition (maybe out?). Guillaume Canet strikes me a bit too commercial for Cannes. Then again, James Gray is one of the screenwriters, and they love him. I imagine it's also a question of whether the film would be considered French or American.

I agree with this - I was thinking if it did screen it'd be out of competition.

[yq888]

Hello and welcome! I'm not sure when the deadline is, but I believe that Cannes programmers watch submissions right up until the announcement in April. We aren't really privy to jury deliberations, but the common thinking is that the president has sway, but not necessarily the final word. I remember Clint Eastwood openly said that he wanted to give the Palme to Zhang Yimou's To Live, but the other jurors all pushed for Pulp Fiction. Recent presidents like Moretti and Isabelle Huppert were said to be quite authoritarian, while De Niro, for example, was apparently very relaxed and easy-going.

I would be kind of surprised to see Blood Ties in competition (maybe out?). Guillaume Canet strikes me a bit too commercial for Cannes. Then again, James Gray is one of the screenwriters, and they love him. I imagine it's also a question of whether the film would be considered French or American.

It's interesting that a number of regulars have bypassed or are planning to bypass the festival this year, like Wong, Almodovar, Dumont and von Trier. Naturally, they still have lots to choose from, but it sort of changes the landscape a bit. Then again, Thierry Fremaux doesn't seem to like the official selection to be made up exclusively of stalwarts, so he might be encouraged to look for new faces. (Though, he'll also want to be cautious, since a number of his "gambles" last year didn't pay off.)

Thanks!

I personally like "to live" better than "pulp fiction" as well, and am quite surprised by same taste from Clint Easterwood. I am not a big fan of his movies - either directed or acted.

I heard the golden palm has to be unanimously agreed by the jury - is that true? If that's the case, the president does have more power. If it is a vote, then everybody is equal.

I think Cannes really need to look for new faces. How many times has Cannes had a new discovery last 10 years? Christian's (4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days) is one but that's pretty much it. For long time I feel some of old faces's new movies are really not that good.

[Pingy]

La Vida e Bella is a masterpiece.

Oh gawd, but you were one of the good ones...

[McTeague]

1) Eh, Scorsese didn’t “award” Life is Beautiful. It won the Grand Prix, not the palm d’or. The Palm actually went to a rather auteuristic choice, Theo Angelopoulos (although I think that was one of his least interesting films, but I think I should rewatch it). Plus, almost a whole year before the Oscars, awarding an Italian movie by a comedian that dared to have laughs at the Holocaust was seen as a very daring and controversial choice. I won’t go as far as Tomo declaring it a masterpiece, but it’s certainly not terrible at all. It’s quite good despite some missteps and a somewhat flat direction (with some highlights, though). Not to mention that year didn’t have the best selection, precisely: Other than the Angelopoulos and Life is Beautiful, few things have become “essential”, at least as far as consensus go. I, for one, think The Idiots is one of Von Trier’s truly provocative films and a very good one, and I also love Haynes “Velvet Goldmine”, but they weren’t exactly making waves. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas has become somewhat cult, I guess, but in its time it was much hated too (I haven’t seen it yet). So, looking at the competition, at how each film was received in its moment, and at how overdue Angelopoulos was thought to be, Scorsese’s jury choices make sense and are certainly not among the worst we’ve seen. That would be Tarantino’s.

2) As for last year’s competition and how apparently Fremaux’ gambles didn’t pay off, it seems to me that last year, simply, was a very weak one. Look at other festival’s selections: I haven’t seen most of the films, but there’s nobody to claim them, neither the Godards or the mainstream. In Berlin, Tabu and the winner (Cesar Must Die) are the only two ones that made some splash. In Cannes there was very little that was much praised beyond Holy Motors and Amour. And in Venice there was nothing beyond The Master (which cannot be considered a festival find), to the point that not even the jury’s head liked their winner much (Pietá). San Sebastian, BTW, had In the House and Blancanieves, which are the only other two non-American/British films from last year that seem to be making some splash. So, more than his gambles not paying off, I think there simply wasn’t much to truly gamble with.

[Genjuro]

1) Eh, Scorsese didn’t “award” Life is Beautiful. It won the Grand Prix, not the palm d’or. The Palm actually went to a rather auteuristic choice, Theo Angelopoulos (although I think that was one of his least interesting films, but I think I should rewatch it). Plus, almost a whole year before the Oscars, awarding an Italian movie by a comedian that dared to have laughs at the Holocaust was seen as a very daring and controversial choice. I won’t go as far as Tomo declaring it a masterpiece, but it’s certainly not terrible at all. It’s quite good despite some missteps and a somewhat flat direction (with some highlights, though). Not to mention that year didn’t have the best selection, precisely: Other than the Angelopoulos and Life is Beautiful, few things have become “essential”, at least as far as consensus go. I, for one, think The Idiots is one of Von Trier’s truly provocative films and a very good one, and I also love Haynes “Velvet Goldmine”, but they weren’t exactly making waves. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas has become somewhat cult, I guess, but in its time it was much hated too (I haven’t seen it yet). So, looking at the competition, at how each film was received in its moment, and at how overdue Angelopoulos was thought to be, Scorsese’s jury choices make sense and are certainly not among the worst we’ve seen. That would be Tarantino’s.

There were a couple of great films that year, Angelopoulos' one aside: Henry Fool by Hal Hartley (ended up with the best screenplay award) and The Hole by Tsai Ming-liang (won the FIPRESCI), both of them head and shoulders above Benigni's in my book. There was also Flowers of Shanghai by Hou Hsiao-hsien, but I still haven't seen it. Still, having The Eternity and a Day winning the Golden Palm is enough for me to consider it a good jury work.

[yq888]

1) Eh, Scorsese didn’t “award” Life is Beautiful. It won the Grand Prix, not the palm d’or. The Palm actually went to a rather auteuristic choice, Theo Angelopoulos (although I think that was one of his least interesting films, but I think I should rewatch it). Plus, almost a whole year before the Oscars, awarding an Italian movie by a comedian that dared to have laughs at the Holocaust was seen as a very daring and controversial choice. I won’t go as far as Tomo declaring it a masterpiece, but it’s certainly not terrible at all. It’s quite good despite some missteps and a somewhat flat direction (with some highlights, though). Not to mention that year didn’t have the best selection, precisely: Other than the Angelopoulos and Life is Beautiful, few things have become “essential”, at least as far as consensus go. I, for one, think The Idiots is one of Von Trier’s truly provocative films and a very good one, and I also love Haynes “Velvet Goldmine”, but they weren’t exactly making waves. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas has become somewhat cult, I guess, but in its time it was much hated too (I haven’t seen it yet). So, looking at the competition, at how each film was received in its moment, and at how overdue Angelopoulos was thought to be, Scorsese’s jury choices make sense and are certainly not among the worst we’ve seen. That would be Tarantino’s.

2) As for last year’s competition and how apparently Fremaux’ gambles didn’t pay off, it seems to me that last year, simply, was a very weak one. Look at other festival’s selections: I haven’t seen most of the films, but there’s nobody to claim them, neither the Godards or the mainstream. In Berlin, Tabu and the winner (Cesar Must Die) are the only two ones that made some splash. In Cannes there was very little that was much praised beyond Holy Motors and Amour. And in Venice there was nothing beyond The Master (which cannot be considered a festival find), to the point that not even the jury’s head liked their winner much (Pietá). San Sebastian, BTW, had In the House and Blancanieves, which are the only other two non-American/British films from last year that seem to be making some splash. So, more than his gambles not paying off, I think there simply wasn’t much to truly gamble with.

You mean Tarantino's choice when he was chair of Venice?

What is Fremaux’ gambles? I don't feel much of difference of last year's cannes.

Theo's win is somewhat related the loss of Palm o'dor from Ulysses's gaze - I personally think it could be a winner together with Underground that year, just like "the piano" and "farewell to my concubine", but with underground's win it is not such an error either.

[McTeague]

There were a couple of great films that year, Angelopoulos' one aside: Henry Fool by Hal Hartley (ended up with the best screenplay award) and The Hole by Tsai Ming-liang (won the FIPRESCI), both of them head and shoulders above Benigni's in my book. There was also Flowers of Shanghai by Hou Hsiao-hsien, but I still haven't seen it. Still, having The Eternity and a Day winning the Golden Palm is enough for me to consider it a good jury work.

Yeah I know, of course no Cannes selection is without some solid films, but of those three I'd say only Flowers of Shanghai is something you read/hear about as an influence in other works, or a key point in the director's career, or just a film a lot of people like a lot. Even Eternity and a Day isn't usually considered the best Angelopoulos. I think "Festen" is one film that has more or less survived, although most hardcore auteurists would see it as somewhat "minor" Dogme. As I said, I LOVE Velvet Goldmine and are very fond of The Idiots, so to me there were also better films than Life is Beautiful. But LiB has certainly made a bigger impact through the years, and it's not as bad as some pretend it to be.

ETA: and no, yq, I meant Tarantino's decision when he was Cannes' chair: Fahrenheit 9/11. Gross.

[Genjuro]

Yeah I know, of course no Cannes selection is without some solid films, but of those three I'd say only Flowers of Shanghai is something you read/hear about as an influence in other works, or a key point in the director's career, or just a film a lot of people like a lot. Even Eternity and a Day isn't usually considered the best Angelopoulos. I think "Festen" is one film that has more or less survived, although most hardcore auteurists would see it as somewhat "minor" Dogme. As I said, I LOVE Velvet Goldmine and are very fond of The Idiots, so to me there were also better films than Life is Beautiful. But LiB has certainly made a bigger impact through the years, and it's not as bad as some pretend it to be.

I was puzzled by your comment on Festen and decided to check TSPDT. How on earth has such a cheap and mediocre movie been able to climb all the way to the 372nd spot? I have to be missing something.

And neither I like Velvet Goldmine, to tell you the truth.

[McTeague]

I was puzzled by your comment on Festen and decided to check TSPDT. How on earth has such a cheap and mediocre movie been able to climb all the way to the 372nd spot? I have to be missing something.

LOL, it's not bad at all? I would never consider it for all time lists and also consider its TSPDT placement gross, but it's a solid movie, very representative of the Dogme movement, no? I remember it being rather intense, almost asphyxiating.

[Genjuro]

LOL, it's not bad at all? I would never consider it for all time lists and also consider its TSPDT placement gross, but it's a solid movie, very representative of the Dogme movement, no? I remember it being rather intense, almost asphyxiating.

I remember it as an effort to impress audiences at all costs, both visually (with some ridiculous shots from impossible angles) and narratively (with those comical plot twists that revealed dirty family secrets). Actually I prefer Idioterne by far.