Cannes 2003

Started by MacGuffin, May 25, 2003, 03:01:04 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3
User actions

MacGuffin

May 25, 2003, 03:01:04 PM
CANNES, France - Gus Van Sant's film "Elephant," about a high school shooting in America, won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival on Sunday.

The director cast real high school students, not professional actors, to star in the film, and asked them to improvise their lines. The movie starts out showing an ordinary day at school that turns to tragedy when two students go on a shooting spree in the hallways.

Van Sant, best known for "Good Will Hunting," also won the prize for best director.

"Uzak," (Distant) a Turkish film about a jobless man from the countryside who irritates his sophisticated city cousin by moving into his apartment, won the Grand Prize, or second place.

The film's two stars, Muzaffer Ozdemir and Mehmet Emin Toprak, shared the award for best actor. They played the two cousins - both lonely and alienated but unable to become friends.

Toprak died in a car crash shortly after learning that the film was selected to show in Cannes; Ozdemir is an architect by profession, not an actor.

The screenwriting prize went to Denys Arcand for "The Barbarian Invasions." He also directed the French-Canadian film about a man who confronts death with humor and sharp intelligence. The movie seemed to touch the most hearts in Cannes and had many viewers wiping away tears.

Marie-Josee Croze, who plays a young drug addict recruited to supply the dying man with heroin to ease his pain, won the award for best actress.

The jury prize went to "At Five in the Afternoon," by 23-year-old Samira Makhmalbaf of Iran. The movie - her third to show in Cannes - is about a spirited young Afghan who dreams of being her country's first woman president.

"Reconstruction," by Denmark's Christoffer Boe, won the Camera d'Or, an award for the best film by a first-time director.

The prize for best short film went to Australia's Glendyn Ivin for "Cracker Bag," about a girl who saves her pocket change to buy firecrackers
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Pedro

#1
May 25, 2003, 03:35:52 PM
I'm excited...but also discouraged that Dogville didn't get anything.  Maybe it's not as good as I was expecting.

Gold Trumpet

#2
May 25, 2003, 04:28:50 PM
I wonder about Dogville now. It seems of all films that were depedent upon Cannes success to be successful elsewhere, it was Dogville. Lars Von Trier feels like Cannes poster boy of today who is always destined to be in the shadow of Ingmar Bergman. I really don't have high expectations though from the film and feel much of the praise came from overt Von Trier enthusiasts the way Ebert spoke about the film. I didn't care much for Von Trier's last two films because I thought the domge esque to them wasn't even necessary for their simple stories because the shaky camera work only brought upon headaches. City of God is the master film on how to use handheld shots and that is always during distress and drama while keeping the camera still during casual moments. Von Trier's films act as though they are always in distress but are nowhere near it. They are steady quiet films for the most part reminiscient of the simplicity of Italian Neo Realism.

I'll catch Elephant when I can but I don't expect much either because even that seemed like a dissapointing choice for winning the Palme D'Or. At best, I heard people liking it. The movie though I am excited for the most and will catch when it comes out is Clint Eastwood's Mystic River.

~rougerum

Ghostboy

#3
May 25, 2003, 04:42:47 PM
I'll bet Lars is PISSED.

Dogville is already set for distribution, though, from Lion's Gate, so at least we don't have to worry about not getting the chance to see it. Which is something I'm worried about in the case of The Brown Bunny, which I still want to see even though I'm pretty sure I know exactly what it will be like (i.e. bad).

After seeing Gerry (so far my pick for best film of '03), I now am excited about anything Van Sant does that is outside the realm of Good Will Hunting crap. I think 'Elephant' sounds great.

I didn't know much about Mystic River until I read Ebert's column today. It sounds awesome...sort of in 'The Pledge' territory. Can't wait.

Pas

#4
May 25, 2003, 05:34:28 PM
Les Invasions Barbares (The Barbarian Invasions) would probably have won the Palme if it had been more technically sophisticated according to the jury. Conseder it had a 3.7M$US budget (which is VERY big in Quebec :oops:) when you see it, you'll be blown away with what he could do.

Also, bear in mind this movie is a SEQUEL to La chute de l'empire Américain (The Fall of the American Empire), so to quebecers the characters are already known, so it implies they have been less described in the movie.

Pozer

#5
May 25, 2003, 08:30:42 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy

After seeing Gerry (so far my pick for best film of '03), I now am excited about anything Van Sant does that is outside the realm of Good Will Hunting crap.

Even a second Psycho remake thing?

Pas

#6
May 25, 2003, 08:35:02 PM
Quote from: poser
Quote from: Ghostboy

After seeing Gerry (so far my pick for best film of '03), I now am excited about anything Van Sant does that is outside the realm of Good Will Hunting crap.

Even a second Psycho remake thing?

Touché !

Ghostboy

#7
May 25, 2003, 08:45:28 PM
I thought the Psycho remake was pretty lame, but I was never opposed to it. While I wouldn't be excited at all if he chose to do that punk rock version, I would be interested in seeing it.

godardian

#8
May 26, 2003, 12:41:58 AM
I can't wait for the Arcand (in my opinion, his Decline of the American Empire may just be the best Canadian film ever) and Dogville. Not yet having seen Gerry (it is a priority), I think the last good Gus van Sant film was To Die For, which is my personal favorite of all of his, despite its violation of his auteur status. I don't have tremendously high expectations of Elephant, but I'm willing to bet it's better than Finding Forrester, which was more of a letdown to me than Neil Labute doing Nurse Betty (though Labute than outdid van Sant for traitorous crapppiness with the astonoshingly, thoroughly bad Possession).
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Ernie

#9
May 26, 2003, 11:43:39 AM
This year's cannes sucked imo.

Elephant just isn't exciting me as much as Gerry did and still does (still haven't seen it). I look forward to it a little more now I guess with it winning the Golden Palm and all...but still not that much. I doubt it'll ever excite me as much as Gerry which I still can't wait to see. I do like Van Sant too...if I haven't already said that in the past. Drugstore Cowboy is one of my fucking FAVORITE films...I would give anything for him to go back to making that kind of film. Or else start making films like Gerry. I also even like Good Will Hunting...it's not my favorite but it's kinda nice. I definitely have to be in a certain mood but I do kinda like it.

And as for Dogville - I don't think I like Von Trier. I finally watched Dancer in the Dark recently and I really can't say I liked it. It wasn't boring like the majority of people that disliked it said it was. I just hate the camerawork and the digital format and all that. I mean, I use digital but that's only for now...I'll never use it in the future when I am REALLY making films (like post-college). I actually really hate digital, it depresses me immensly that it's really going to be big. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every film absolutely has to be beautiful but there's a point where it  can come to annoy me...just how lazy people will let filmmaker's be with how much time they spend on their cinematography and how their films look. And then the CONSTANT handheld...it just seemed like Von Trier didn't give a fuck about the audience. Like, going back to Gerry...that's more beautiful than I would ever expect a film to be. DITD is on the complete opposite...very ugly film. I also never really did like Bjork so...that made it extra hard to enjoy the film. Really the only good part was Catherine Deneuve who I really like.

The Brown Bunny does sound pretty bad as much as I don't want it to. I want to get excited about it just because of Buffalo 66...as good as that is. Or I at least want to have that unsure, weird excitement like I did way back with PDL when it was at cannes...when I was just getting into PTA. I just can't though...it just doesn't sound very good.

SoNowThen

#10
May 26, 2003, 11:52:43 AM
I haven't seen any post-Dogma Von Trier, but for those who wonder why he's labelled as such a great filmmaker, you should see The Element Of Crime. Just a good old creepy post-apocalyptic detective movie. But as for this hand-held digital shit, fuck... I can do that in my apartment. How good can it possibly be?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

BonBon85

#11
May 26, 2003, 12:07:13 PM
Quote from: ebeaman
And as for Dogville - I don't think I like Von Trier. I finally watched Dancer in the Dark recently and I really can't say I liked it. It wasn't boring like the majority of people that disliked it said it was. I just hate the camerawork and the digital format and all that. I mean, I use digital but that's only for now...I'll never use it in the future when I am REALLY making films (like post-college). I actually really hate digital, it depresses me immensly that it's really going to be big. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every film absolutely has to be beautiful but there's a point where it  can come to annoy me...just how lazy people will let filmmaker's be with how much time they spend on their cinematography and how their films look. And then the CONSTANT handheld...it just seemed like Von Trier didn't give a fuck about the audience. Like, going back to Gerry...that's more beautiful than I would ever expect a film to be. DITD is on the complete opposite...very ugly film. I also never really did like Bjork so...that made it extra hard to enjoy the film. Really the only good part was Catherine Deneuve who I really like.

I have to disagree with you here. The whole point of the dogme movement was to make raw, realistic films. If it weren't for the use of natural lighting, handheld cameras, etc. the film wouldn't have seemed as real and, at least for me, it wouldn't have been nearly as emotional. The movie is supposed to be ugly, as it reflects the despair of its subject. I think of DITD as a very sad film and I don't think that it would have acheived that level in heightened emotion if it weren't for its realism.

SoNowThen

#12
May 26, 2003, 12:16:07 PM
Funnily enough, I find underlit/dirty/handheld films to be the LEAST "realistic" of all movies. It takes a really sure hand to light a film to make it look like reality, but given the nature of film (and especially video) you usually need lots of lights. This is my preference, anyway. I don't mean the high key lighting typical of comedies or romances or whatever, but the masters like Hall and Spinotti always have a way of getting their own look, but at the same time achieving what I like to call a powerful hightened reality.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Cecil

#13
May 26, 2003, 12:23:44 PM
it looks realistic because it looks like shitty homemade crap. same thing with it being handheld: its not that its handheld that makes it "realistic" (we ourselves see things more from a steady-cam POV) its that documentaries and the news are handheld, therfore we associate handheld with something that is really happening or happened

SoNowThen

#14
May 26, 2003, 12:45:18 PM
Yup, exactly. That's most people's definition of realistic look. But what I feel should be called "realistic" is to replicate what our eyes can see. And most times you need to add a fill light, otherwise the lighting contrast is too much for the media (film or vid) to handle, and it ends up being way too dark in spots, too light in others. That's why I say natural lighting is hard to make look realistic. I've tried with every short I've done, and have finally admitted that I need a DP to light like crazy for me.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3
User actions