Xixax Film Forum

Latest Almodovar Film to Kick Off Cannes  

PARIS - The 1960s love tale "Bad Education," the latest movie from Spanish director Pedro Almodovar, will open the Cannes Film Festival in May, organizers said Friday.

"Opening the Cannes festival marks the peak of the honeymoon that I've been living with the French public for years," Almodovar said in a statement issued by the festival's organizers.

The movie tells the story of two boys and a priest in a Roman Catholic school in Spain in the 1960s, who are then reunited about a decade later.

"Bad Education" will kick off the 57th annual festival on May 12, but it is not yet clear whether it will be in the competition. American director Quentin Tarantino heads this year's jury.

Almodovar's "All About My Mother," starring Penelope Cruz, won best directing honors at Cannes in 1999.

The festival will run May 12-23

i've always wondered how they can get past the language barrier at the film festivals. do the films have english subtitles or french subtitles? if in french, how will quentin judge the film?

i would assume that all films have to have english subtitles, seeing as how english is really the most important language.

if bad education is even half as good as talk to her i'll be happy.

I'll be going!! woohoo :)

Festival lineup promises Cannes laughter

Official selection steers away from previous years' controversy and places Shrek 2 in competition

 
Long revered as the bastion of serious, heavyweight cinema, the Cannes film festival looks set to lighten up this year with a lineup sprinkled with more comedies than ever before.
Among the 18 films competing for the 2004 Palme d'Or are the Coen brothers' remake of The Ladykillers, the DreamWorks animation Shrek 2 and - more tangentially - The Life and Death of Peter Sellers, Stephen Hopkins' biopic of the legendary British comic. Terry Zwigoff's scatological Bad Santa is also screening out of competition.

Discussing the lineup, festival chief Thierry Fremaux hailed it as "an affirmation for comedy." He added: "During the past few years, fiction film-making has sought to redefine the formal boundaries and quite often took radical turns that disturbed the general public. That is not true for the films presented in 2004."

Elsewhere, the festival provides less laugh-a-minute fare. Other prime contenders for the Palme d'Or are Walter Salles's The Motorcycle Diaries, Wong Kar Wai's 2046, Emir Kusturica's Life is a Miracle and Olivier Assayas's Clean. Controversy is likely to come courtesy of Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9-11.

Other highlights include the world premiere of Troy, and the return of octogenarian Senegalese film-maker Ousmane Sembene, whose film Moolaade is competing in the Un Certain Regard section.

The 2004 Cannes film festival opens on May 13 with the premiere of Pedro Almodóvar's Bad Education and closes May 23 with Irwin Winkler's Cole Porter biopic DeLovely. This year's jury president will be Quentin Tarantino, whose Kill Bill: Volume 2 will be screening out of competition.

I believe all films must have copies available with both French and English subtitles. Those are traditionally the 2 languages of the festival. They screen for both.

Quote from: cronopio inrockuptibleFestival lineup promises Cannes laughter

Among the 18 films competing for the 2004 Palme d'Or are the Coen brothers' remake of The Ladykillers, and Terry Zwigoff's scatological Bad Santa is also screening out of competition.

look for your laughs elsewhere canne-adians.

bad santa was funny...

Egads!  'Old Boy' is in competition!  I want to see this so friggin' bad it makes my head hurt.

http://www.festival-cannes.fr/index.php?langue=6002#selection

Godard's new movie is showing.

So that, and the Wong Kar Wai, are all that matters.

Quote from: SoNowThenGodard's new movie is showing.

So that, and the Won Kar Wai, are all that matters.

Somehow, your not being an Almodovar fan doesn't shock me.  :)  I, however, would put him right up there with (at least in the vicinity of) the other two. Pauline Kael called him "first-rank," "the most original pop writer-director of the eighties," and "Godard with a human face," one of the few times I can unequivocally agree with Kael (Brian de Palma being my other notable Kael concurrence).

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: SoNowThenGodard's new movie is showing.

So that, and the Won Kar Wai, are all that matters.

Somehow, your not being an Almodovar fan doesn't shock me.  :)  I, however, would put him right up there with (at least in the vicinity of) the other two. Pauline Kael called him "first-rank," "the most original pop writer-director of the eighties," and "Godard with a human face," one of the few times I can unequivocally agree with Kael (Brian de Palma being my other notable Kael concurrence).

Many of you will find this really ignorant, but I just can't help it... this is the reason why I won't watch Almodovar:

compare his actions at the Golden Globes with Scorsese. Pedro goes up and imo talks a bunch of bullshit, trying to push a cause. Marty goes up and thanks who he gotta thank, says some nice things about cinema, and sits down. Class. The former exactly what I hate most about art-house filmmakers. The latter what I strive to be like.

Quote from: SoNowThen

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: SoNowThenGodard's new movie is showing.

So that, and the Won Kar Wai, are all that matters.

Somehow, your not being an Almodovar fan doesn't shock me.  :)  I, however, would put him right up there with (at least in the vicinity of) the other two. Pauline Kael called him "first-rank," "the most original pop writer-director of the eighties," and "Godard with a human face," one of the few times I can unequivocally agree with Kael (Brian de Palma being my other notable Kael concurrence).

Many of you will find this really ignorant, but I just can't help it... this is the reason why I won't watch Almodovar:

compare his actions at the Golden Globes with Scorsese. Pedro goes up and imo talks a bunch of bullshit, trying to push a cause. Marty goes up and thanks who he gotta thank, says some nice things about cinema, and sits down. Class. The former exactly what I hate most about art-house filmmakers. The latter what I strive to be like.

I notice that you didn't say anything about the films, though. Following your logic, I would absolutely despise Tarantino. But I don't; I find him a really annoying person and a very gifted filmmaker.

Quote from: SoNowThenThe latter what I strive to be like.

You could start up a Snake Awareness Fund with the type of films you're aspiring to make.  :wink:

^^
Classic





Nah, it's not a logic I apply to anyone else, it's just on that particular day, in the particular way he acted, I just HATED everything to do with him instantly. The way he talked about his film, the way he looked, his political bent, all of it. Plus, later the next day I got in an arguement with this joker at the film co-op over this same issue. This guy thought he was gonna educate me on PTA, first off, then he started blasting Scorsese and praising Pedro. I thought, if these are Almodovar fans, I don't wanna join the club.

Quote from: SoNowThen^^
Classic





Nah, it's not a logic I apply to anyone else, it's just on that particular day, in the particular way he acted, I just HATED everything to do with him instantly. The way he talked about his film, the way he looked, his political bent, all of it. Plus, later the next day I got in an arguement with this joker at the film co-op over this same issue. This guy thought he was gonna educate me on PTA, first off, then he started blasting Scorsese and praising Pedro. I thought, if these are Almodovar fans, I don't wanna join the club.

oh , c'mon...  don't be like that.

Quote from: SoNowThen^^
Classic

Quote from: Pubrickhaha there's nothing above u.

story of my life

Quote from: godardianone of the few times I can unequivocally agree with Kael (Brian de Palma being my other notable Kael concurrence).

What did she say about DePalma?

Quote from: hacksparrow

Quote from: godardianone of the few times I can unequivocally agree with Kael (Brian de Palma being my other notable Kael concurrence).

What did she say about DePalma?

She is a longtime adorer of his work and his style, which has an extremely unique and individualistic sort of humor and idiosyncracy, the kind that happens to be exactly up Kael's alley.

On Blow-Out: "I think De Palma has sprung to the place that Altman achieved with films such as McCabe and Mrs. Miller and Nashville and that Coppola reached with the two Godfather movies- that is, to the place where genre is transcended and what we're moved by is an artist's vision."

Quote from: SoNowThen^^
Classic





Nah, it's not a logic I apply to anyone else, it's just on that particular day, in the particular way he acted, I just HATED everything to do with him instantly. The way he talked about his film, the way he looked, his political bent, all of it. Plus, later the next day I got in an arguement with this joker at the film co-op over this same issue. This guy thought he was gonna educate me on PTA, first off, then he started blasting Scorsese and praising Pedro. I thought, if these are Almodovar fans, I don't wanna join the club.

I have to say that if we were to judge directors by the way they look, we'd be very hard pressed. Most directors aren't really known for their looks, are they? I dunno... those all seem like poor reasons to me (how many annoying people like the same directors you like, and do the fans ever actually "represent" an artist or their work?) but then again, none of them bother me, so I guess it's subjective. Still, I'd like to hear what you think of his actual films. Since I'm assuming the "political bent" of Almodovar (I don't actually know much about it, though I'm sure I could make a good guess) is one a huge majority of the worldwide creative community shares, including any number of people you adore and worship, it just seems incongruous that you would single him out for such things.

Along these lines, I can honestly say that if someone I found truly and thoroughly despicable as a person- Mel Gibson, say- made worthwhile art, I would force myself to admit it (so in a way, it's kind of a blessing that Gibson is so dullsville and hamfisted as an actor and director). I still think "My Way" is a great song, even though Frank Sinatra became some asshole Reaganite Republican in his later life. I believe you should be able to acknowledge the singular qualities of Almodovar's work and why it's a highly anticipated Cannes showing, even if you don't care for him or even for his movies. How any movie lover could not be transfixed by Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown is beyond me, though.

Quote from: SoNowThenGodard's new movie is showing.

So that, and the Wong Kar Wai, are all that matters.

Oh, come on! life is a miracle is the first kusturica film in 6 years, do you know how much that means to me?

I saw what he did at the Golden Globes and I don't think  it was a big deal. He just said that at his Hotel, there was one of those cards that say "Do Not Disturb" and this one said "Peace, please." or something in that context,  and what  he said was that that pointed out his attention because - even that piece of paper was asking for peace. A lot of people clapped, no one booed. It was not as notorious as Michael Moore's incident.

Yeah, fair enough, Kusturica can be on our list, too. He's cool.



:)

Anyway, for all that I said, I thought I clarified it with these two quotes:

"you will find this really ignorant, but I just can't help it"
and
"it's not a logic I apply to anyone else"

I didn't say they were particularly good reasons. But they are facts, nonetheless.

Quote from: godardian

I still think "My Way" is a great song, even though Frank Sinatra became some asshole Reaganite Republican in his later life. .

Wasn't that because he helped Kennedy out and when JFK became President he ceased contact with Sinatra so as not to be associated with the possible Mafia Sinatra connection.  He heard that Sinatra was pissed about this and decided to help out the republican party from then on.

Quote from: cronopio l'inrockuptibleI saw what he did at the Golden Globes and I don't think  it was a big deal. He just said that at his Hotel, there was one of those cards that say "Do Not Disturb" and this one said "Peace, please." or something in that context,  and what  he said was that that pointed out his attention because - even that piece of paper was asking for peace. A lot of people clapped, no one booed. It was not as notorious as Michael Moore's incident.

No, you're right, it wasn't notorious at all. As much as I think Moore is a joker, at least he has balls to start shit. Pedro just had this "please love me" tone that looked like he was trying so hard to be a cool artsy leftist. And that shit is putrid (to me).

Quote from: SoNowThenYeah, fair enough, Kusturica can be on our list, too. He's cool.



:)

Anyway, for all that I said, I thought I clarified it with these two quotes:

"you will find this really ignorant, but I just can't help it"
and
"it's not a logic I apply to anyone else"

I didn't say they were particularly good reasons. But they are facts, nonetheless.

I guess it's my experience that you're a more serious thinker about film than that and that you would expect better reasons of yourself for dismissing or ignoring (or leaving off "the list") a widely and well regarded filmmaker whom many people who take cinema seriously find "important," whether or not you like him...  :(

Have you seen any of his films, SoNowThen? If not, you should at least try them out.

Quote from: Chest RockwellHave you seen any of his films, SoNowThen? If not, you should at least try them out.

I wasn't going to go accusing anyone of disrespecting a director whose films they haven't even seen... so I'm assuming he has.

IFC Channel is doing a week of past Cannes favorites during the week of the festival, so watch for that...if you care.

interesting. as of late, EVERY TIME i turn on IFC they are playing ghost world or happy accidents (a movie, i guess, that they are trying to build up some kind of fanbase with, b/c i don't think ANYBODY saw that movie)

Quote from: SoNowThen

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: SoNowThenGodard's new movie is showing.

So that, and the Won Kar Wai, are all that matters.

Somehow, your not being an Almodovar fan doesn't shock me.  :)  I, however, would put him right up there with (at least in the vicinity of) the other two. Pauline Kael called him "first-rank," "the most original pop writer-director of the eighties," and "Godard with a human face," one of the few times I can unequivocally agree with Kael (Brian de Palma being my other notable Kael concurrence).

Many of you will find this really ignorant, but I just can't help it... this is the reason why I won't watch Almodovar:

compare his actions at the Golden Globes with Scorsese. Pedro goes up and imo talks a bunch of bullshit, trying to push a cause. Marty goes up and thanks who he gotta thank, says some nice things about cinema, and sits down. Class. The former exactly what I hate most about art-house filmmakers. The latter what I strive to be like.

The problem is: Of those 2, Almodovar deserved his award that year.

Quote from: bonanzatazinteresting. as of late, EVERY TIME i turn on IFC they are playing ghost world or happy accidents (a movie, i guess, that they are trying to build up some kind of fanbase with, b/c i don't think ANYBODY saw that movie)

those and some old samurai movies, i only saw ghost world on there once, but happy accidents seems to be on like every day.

Quote from: SoNowThen... this is the reason why I won't watch Almodovar.

Just to clear up, not to get off course again. No, I haven't seen anything by him, and probably won't unless somehow I manage to watch EVERYTHING else I ever wanna see (if that makes any sense). But maybe one day, when I have no other movies to watch, I'll rent one of his and be completely blown away. For now, I fear his personality will come through in his work and I'll wanna punch in my tv screen.

BTW, for the record, I was obviously kidding before. There's a shit load of interesting movies at Cannes, and I envy whoever gets to go.

Quote from: SoNowThen

Quote from: SoNowThen... this is the reason why I won't watch Almodovar.

Just to clear up, not to get off course again. No, I haven't seen anything by him, and probably won't unless somehow I manage to watch EVERYTHING else I ever wanna see (if that makes any sense). But maybe one day, when I have no other movies to watch, I'll rent one of his and be completely blown away. For now, I fear his personality will come through in his work and I'll wanna punch in my tv screen.

BTW, for the record, I was obviously kidding before. There's a shit load of interesting movies at Cannes, and I envy whoever gets to go.

SEE "TALK TO HER". PLEASE. AT LEAST.

Quote from: cronopio l'inrockuptible

Quote from: SoNowThen

Quote from: SoNowThen... this is the reason why I won't watch Almodovar.

Just to clear up, not to get off course again. No, I haven't seen anything by him, and probably won't unless somehow I manage to watch EVERYTHING else I ever wanna see (if that makes any sense). But maybe one day, when I have no other movies to watch, I'll rent one of his and be completely blown away. For now, I fear his personality will come through in his work and I'll wanna punch in my tv screen.

BTW, for the record, I was obviously kidding before. There's a shit load of interesting movies at Cannes, and I envy whoever gets to go.

SEE "TALK TO HER". PLEASE. AT LEAST.

..i agree, sonowthen......you should see 'talk to her'.....i'm not a fan of pedro's politics ..but that film is incredible.....you owe it to yourself as a film lover to watch it... :) ....i'd like to see what you think about it...

Talk to Her is rather great. I don't really know his personality outside film, but Talk to Her was too beautiful, too real, to imply some asshole radical. It makes no political statements of any kind that I saw.

Definitely see Talk to Her.  I know of at least one scene in the film that you'll probably love.  Gallo is an asshole, but that didn't stop me from seeing Buffalo '66.  Not too sure about The Brown Bunny though.  Hehe.  Ditto with Lars Von Trier.  A lot of times, assholes make the best films.

i think he should start with Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down, and if he likes that, he should move to All About My Mother, then Talk To Her. Pedro needs some getting used to at first.

Only film I've seen of his so far is Talk to Her.  He'll be fine.  And TTH is his best according to most, so this'll be an indication if he wants to pursue other works of his.  But that's just me.  And yeah, I really wanna see Atame! and Todo sobre mi madre.

All I've seen by him is TTH, as well. I love that Cucurrucu Paloma song in it...I wanted to cry.

save ur breath, he won't see it. sheesh, can't u see how intent he is on condemning almodovar for sum stupid speech?!

i would say he's being ridiculous if it wasn't so lame, ignorant and childish. the dude's made sum of the best movies of all time, and cos of one thing he said and an obnoxious fan, suddenly his work is worthless?

yeah, whatever, so u acknowledged it was ignorant, it's still ignorant, and combined with how u loved to chime in on the Passion of Christ discussion without having seen the movie, i gotta say u've discredited urself conclusively from any critical discussion.

jesus, two pages wasted on a person's ignorance, this is how that donnie darko thread got so long. oh, and hav u heard almodovar speak at any other time? that's how he acts, confidently effeminate, maybe that's what u were objecting to.. considering u want to compare him to Scorsese (a Man's man).

Quote from: Pubricki gotta say u've discredited urself conclusively from any critical discussion.

So, am I effectively banned from the Grapevine and Now Playing Threads?  

Quote from: Pubrickthat's how he acts, confidently effeminate, maybe that's what u were objecting to.. considering u want to compare him to Scorsese (a Man's man).

Hmm, that's interesting. Yeah, that's probably some of it. I just think award shows are such bunk to begin with, go up there, thank who you gotta thank, and get off stage. But you may have hit on something there...

Tarantino Jury Gets Diverse Cannes Lineup

PARIS (AP) - With the Cannes Film Festival a few days away, it's time again for the annual guessing game: What will catch the fancy of the jury president, who this year is the unpredictable Quentin Tarantino?

The gentle green ogre of "Shrek 2''? Michael Moore's deeply critical look at U.S. President George W. Bush, "Fahrenheit 9/11''? Or will he go for something more in his own edgy style, like the South Korean kidnapping thriller "Old Boy''?

Tarantino's nine-member jury includes actresses Kathleen Turner and Tilda Swinton. When Cannes starts Wednesday, jury members will have to choose between 18 films competing for the top prize, the Palme d'Or. "Bad Education'' by Pedro Almodovar, about boys at a Roman Catholic school in Spain in the 1960s, opens the festival, but it's not in competition.

It's a diverse year at Cannes. Selections range from "The Motorcycle Diaries,'' a new road movie by Brazil's Walter Salles ("Central Station''), to Hong Kong director Wong Kar-wai's "2046,'' a time-travel fantasy. He reportedly is scrambling to have it ready in time.

Festival President Gilles Jacob says he faced criticism, especially from Americans, after last year's competition showcased many French movies - five out of 20.

"We limited the number of French films in the main theater to three, and the number of French jury members to one,'' he said.

When it comes to choosing winners, however, nobody can accuse Cannes of playing favorites with homegrown films. In more than three decades, only one French film has won the top prize: Maurice Pialat's "Sous le soleil de Satan'' (Under the Sun of Satan) in 1987.

Agnes Jaoui's "Comme une image,'' (Like an Image) about a self-conscious teenager who finds happiness learning to sing, is one of the three French movies competing. Jaoui won a 2001 Academy Award nomination for best foreign film for "The Taste of Others,'' a clever comedy of manners about what happens when opposites attract.

For the first time, a Thai movie is in the main competition. Apichatpong Weerasethakul's "Tropical Malady'' is about a voyage into the jungle.

Germany has its first movie in competition in a decade. Daniel Bruehl, the star of the tenderhearted "Good Bye, Lenin!'' will appear in "Edukators,'' about a love triangle between German activists.

Last year, Cannes was criticized for a lackluster lineup, and Gus Van Sant's divisive "Elephant,'' about teenage gunmen who attack a high school, took the top prize.

The Riviera festival is sometimes criticized for putting too many dark and morose films in competition, and this year it's lightening up with two animated films - "Shrek 2'' and Japan's "Innocence.''

Protests are expected to provide another diversion. France's part-time show business workers, such as actors and technicians, are upset about cuts to their unemployment benefits and plan disruptions as stars glide up the red carpet on the way into premieres.

Demonstrations will likely be creative and quirky. In the past, protesters blasted fog horns at concerts and stormed the set of a prime-time newscast.

There will be other doses of politics at Cannes. Filmmaker Alexandra Kerry, the daughter of U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry, will show a short film about a family dealing with the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

Two years after Moore got a standing ovation at Cannes for "Bowling for Columbine,'' he's back with another documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11,'' which criticizes Bush's handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Quote from: SoNowThen

Quote from: Pubricki gotta say u've discredited urself conclusively from any critical discussion.

So, am I effectively banned from the Grapevine and Now Playing Threads?  

Quote from: Pubrickthat's how he acts, confidently effeminate, maybe that's what u were objecting to.. considering u want to compare him to Scorsese (a Man's man).

Hmm, that's interesting. Yeah, that's probably some of it. I just think award shows are such bunk to begin with, go up there, thank who you gotta thank, and get off stage. But you may have hit on something there...

I really hope he hasn't, though, because that would confirm some of my worst suspicions about you that I was actively trying to think against (i.e., give you credit for not knee-jerk reacting against a great filmmaker who's not a "man's man," which is well beneath any thinking person). It wouldn't be the first time I've been disappointed from that quarter, but it would be the worst, because it so directly has to do with what we're all here to talk about.

I don't find Scorsese a "man's man," to be honest. He's not fucking Clint Eastwood or Mel Gibson, with some kind of painfully obvious, nail-biting complex about his gender! No "man's man" would ever enthuse about something "artistic" in the often articulate but always passionate way he does in his Personal Journey. I find Scorsese masculine yet down-to-earth and human, none of which goes for the other two I mentioned (macho hardly equals masculine- think about it).

I'm pretty sure Scorsese would kick anyone's ass who who even thought themselves capable of rejecting a filmmaker and his entire voluminous, unique, and eminent body of work because he's "confidently effeminate," though. That pretty thoroughly undermines the credibility of someone who wants to think they're a cinephile.

I'd like to think that Clint Eastwood is masculine yet down to earth.

Quote from: TictacbkI'd like to think that Clint Eastwood is masculine yet down to earth.

I, too, would like to be able to think that...

well he did do Bridges of Madison county AND Paint your wagon.

Quote from: Tictacbkwell he did do Bridges of Madison county AND Paint your wagon.

He'd have to do summer stock in Cabaret to make up for the Dirty Harry series, though.  :wink:

Quote from: godardianI don't find Scorsese a "man's man," to be honest.

That's because your definition of "man's man" is probably a derogatory and grotesque nightmare of anything you ever found offensive in masculinity.


Also, I'm not a cinephile, I'm a filmmaker. If I was just a fan who was trying to be the best fan he could be, I suppose I'd have to like everything equally. But things being as they are, because of time contraints and focusing of personal vision, I hafta be unfairly biased against some things.


Back to topic: is it true, the rumor that I heard, that WKW might not have his movie ready for Cannes?

dude, ur a total homophobe.

Dammit, everytime I make a post that I think makes complete sense in the most rational way, I inevitably have to spend the next 2 pages defending it word by word...


Are you just kidding, or are you being serious? Cos it seems to me that is exactly the reason he has such trouble with the phrase you said being attributed to Scorsese.

a) How, exactly, is Scorsese any more of a "man's man" than his big hero, the bisexual, Judy Garland-marrying Vincente Minnelli? He's not obsessively threatened by and squeamish about homosexuality or unacceptably "womanish" men, which seems to me to be the real mark of a "man's man." I didn't just make that up, either; you know as well as I do what I base that on.

b) Are cinephiles really "just fans"? I thought they were people who cared about the cinema and had a voracious appetite for it. I think "movie fan" is much too casual a term; cinephile means something a lot more than that.

At least you admitted to being unfair, though. Still, that unfairness reflects poorly. How much easier and more flattering would it have been just to say, "Oh, I haven't seen any of Almodovar's films- I'm ignorant on that guy's stuff." That goes for me with plenty of famous filmmakers, but instead of basing my opinion or willingness to see their work on something I think I know about them as individuals, I just cop to not having had a chance to see the work. I mean, there are plenty of great directors (Tarantino is the first one who comes to mind) who have personalities that would preclude me from ever seeing anything of theirs... if I were so fatuous as to base my willingness to assay their filmmaking capabilities on something so finally arbitrary as their sexual orientation, demeanor, or espoused political views.

So, yes, the bottom line seems to be that there's a person here who would ignore and/or dismiss Pedro Almodovar (while also being resolutely unwilling to see any of his films) as a filmmaker simply because he's a big gay progressive who found some very mild-mannered and pleasant way to express his opinion publicly. And when you consider the Godard-appreciation of that person, that eliminates being genuinely put off by someone loudly espousing and blatantly including in their films even the most radically leftist views. That pretty much leaves homophobia, whether Pubrick was joking or not.

I guess it's just lucky for some people that Godard wasn't gay... but where does that leave Pasolini, Fellini (read John Baxter's revealing essay in the Juliet of the Spirits DVD if you're wondering), Minnelli, Fassbinder, etc? The more you think about the Almodovar-bashing and subsequent discursive flailing around we've seen here, the more absurd and insupportable it seems. He's being singled out- by someone who, again, not only hasn't seen his work but apparently refuses to- for doing something that seems laughably minor compared to equivalent things said/done by many of the other directors I mentioned, only on a much more grand and unequivocal scale. There are sections of Pierrot le Fou, Weekend, and Masculin/Feminin that are what Almodovar said magnified a million times. And that's in the work, not separate from it on a stage somewhere.

Morrissey certainly isn't a man's man.

Quote from: mutinycoMorrissey certainly isn't a man's man.

:yabbse-thumbup:

To tie it in with Scorsese, he once used a giant Harvey Keitel still from Who's That Knocking at My Door as a stage backdrop (alternating with an equally giant Edith Sitwell) for the '91 Kill Uncle tour (it was supposed to be the Strangeways, Here We Come cover, but they couldn't get permission; Moz really wanted to use it, though, and Keitel eventually relented).

Programme:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftmregistry.com%2Fpassion%2Ftourbook91b.jpg&hash=f84eca991e4833de6cb8eb5847f061df8677a287)

...which is, in fact, where I first ever heard of Who's That Knocking At My Door.

Whoa, back up the pony wagon here. I have no idea about Almodovar's sexual activities. He came off like a goof, imo, Scorsese didn't, imo. I have no ulterior motives for being put-off by him, so don't cry wolf on my watch.


Also, Fellini was not gay.  :roll:  I have the Baxter book that essay is culled from.

Quote from: godardianScorsese...  He's not obsessively threatened by and squeamish about homosexuality or unacceptably "womanish" men, which seems to me to be the real mark of a "man's man."

Good, so we're in agreeance -- Scorsese is a man's man.

Quote from: godardianAre cinephiles really "just fans"?

Yes.

Quote from: godardian
There are sections of Pierrot le Fou, Weekend, and Masculin/Feminin that are what Almodovar said magnified a million times. And that's in the work, not separate from it on a stage somewhere.

Good. Put whatever you want in the work. I'll support that. Doesn't mean I'll choose to watch it. In Godard's case, I have.


I didn't say I want to kill Almodovar. I didn't say he should stop making movies. I never said anything negative about the movies he's made. I have lots of shit to watch in the near future. I don't plan on including any of his filmography anytime soon. If I was at Cannes, and it came down to going to a screening of his new flick, or hanging out at the topless beach, I'd choose the beach. Learn to deal with it.

Tarantino set for Cannes 'heaven'
BBC News

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsimg.bbc.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F40145000%2Fjpg%2F_40145373_tarantino_apbody.jpg&hash=e63a7e05b0580de6815a646b30160329e68b6092)
Quentin Tarantino heads a festival jury that includes Tilda Swinton and Emmanuelle Beart


The world's film industry elite have gathered for the start of the 57th Cannes Film Festival in France.

This year's main competition jury is headed by director Quentin Tarantino, who described the event as "heaven".

"I think we've all dreamed of heaven - for me, [Cannes] is where dreams come true," he said on the opening day.

After the 11-day event is opened by Pedro Almodovar's La Mala Educacion on Wednesday, the jury will judge 18 contenders for the Palme d'Or award.

They include Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911, Shrek 2 and Tom Hanks' The Ladykillers, as well as offerings from France, Japan and Argentina.

Among the stars due to attend are Charlize Theron, Cameron Diaz and Brad Pitt, who will be promoting his Greek epic Troy on Thursday.

The event is seen as the world's most prestigious film festival, where directors and actors go to launch films and where executives go to buy them.

Merit

Tarantino, who won the Palme d'Or in 1994 with Pulp Fiction, is head of a nine-strong jury that also includes actresses Kathleen Turner, Emmanuelle Beart and Tilda Swinton.

He said: "As great as it is to go [to Cannes] with a movie, it's better to be president of the jury."

He would judge the competing films purely on merit, he said.

"When you're going to look at films that you have never seen before - completely different styles, genres, countries - I don't think it would be right to have any kind of criteria," he said.

"I think we'll know it when we see it."

He said he would not let the political storm around Fahrenheit 911, which Disney has refused to release because of its strong anti-President Bush stance, colour the jury's judgement.

"I think it's just going to fall down on whether or not we like the movie. Politics be damned, if that's possible."

And he added: "It's very well-known how much I like Asian cinema - but that doesn't give one film an edge over another."

Last year's award was won by Gus Van Sant's Elephant, in a year when the festival came in for criticism for its poor choice of films.

'Not my fight'

There were fears this year's event could be disrupted by protests from striking French part-time showbusiness workers angry at cuts to their benefits.

But a last-minute deal saw Cannes organisers agree to provide them with a meeting space, and allow them to make public speeches during the festival.

When asked about the dispute, Tarantino said: "I don't really understand it - and since I'm not a French citizen, I don't have to.

"I'm here to judge films - it's not my fight."

The festival will be officially opened with an opening ceremony at 1830 BST on Wednesday, followed by a screening of La Mala Educacion.

Almodovar and the film's cast, including Mexican star Gael Garcia Bernal, will be among those walking the red carpet up the steps of the Palais de Festivals.

La Mala Educación was booed.

That bad?

I was punk'd. It wasn't,  it was applauded in fact.  My sister saw it a while ago and she told me it was very dark and experimental.  And my uncle saw it too, this guy LOVED Hable con Ella but detested La Mala Educación.

from indieWIRE.com:

"The 57th edition of the Cannes Film Festival opened Wednesday night with Pedro Almodovar's latest, the narratively inventive but emotionally tepid La Mala Educacion (Bad Education). While always watchable – and a qualitative quantum leap over last year's fest opener, the ghastly French costume drama Fanfan La Tulipe – the Spanish filmmaker's most recent effort comes nowhere near the heights of recent triumphs like All About My Mother and Talk to Her."

MORE >> (http://www.indiewire.com/movies/movies_040513badedu.html)

NOTRE MUSIQUE

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/awards/cannes/review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000496911

Jean-Luc Godard's new film is part melancholy contemplation on the impact of war and part learned disquisition on the essence of cinema and how the two have entwined to become the music of our lives.
The film is beautifully shot and edited and largely accessible. Lovers of cinema will like it for its insights into the melding of text and images, and it will find a broader audience for its contribution to the debate on modern war.

The film is in three parts, each named for a Kingdom: Hell, Purgatory and Heaven. The first is a shattering montage of clips, still shots and bits of film showing the full catastrophe of war from a wide variety of sources including such pictures as "Kiss Me Deadly," "Zulu" and "Apocalypse Now."

To the sound of a pounding piano, Godard mixes film textures, colors, close-ups and myriad images of everything from chariots to tanks, arrows to rockets and horses to jet fighters. The 12-minute masterpiece of filmmaking is an explosive display of war's carnage, banality and suffering. A young voice on the soundtrack needlessly observes, "It is terrible here."

The melancholy approach to the subject extends to the self-portrait Godard provides. The firebrand of old is here a genial companion who smokes cigars and calls for champagne. In our last sight of him, he's tending his garden.


Variety:

"Our Music," from veteran provocateur Jean-Luc Godard, is rigorously shot, but with an interior mellowness that's far from the scatter-gun, guerrilla mentality of even his last movie, "In Praise of Love" (2001). Pic is a philosophical meditation on man's inability to reconcile the contrary forces in his makeup -- here, seen through the savagery and pointlessness of war. Recognizably Godard with its playfulness and wordplays, but deeply human at the same time, this won't go any further commercially than his recent works, but will delight upscale viewers in festivals and other niche situations.

At 73, the French-born Swiss filmmaker ranks as one of the few of his generation with a cohesive moral position tied to a stubborn love of cinema -- and, more importantly, fresh ways of conveying both. Essentially elegiac in flavor, film carries an emotional power in its final stages that is all the more moving for its simplicity.

Godard, playing himself, is among the guests at a series of European Literary Encounters taking place in the once-ravaged city. Mixing other real writers and thinkers with fictional characters, section immediately uses Godardian word games and declamations as soon as the guests are ferried into town in taxis.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa69.g.akamai.net%2F7%2F69%2F7515%2Fv1%2Fimg5.allocine.fr%2Fimg_cis%2Fimages%2Ffestivaldecannes%2Fimg%2Fphoto%2F007245&hash=27c511ce772c8718fbe73661d349094259b93a18)

Cannes screening for most sexually explicit British film


Charlotte Higgins in Cannes
Monday May 17, 2004
The Guardian


Nine Songs: Winterbottom says of the most graphic scenes; 'We can always take that out'
 
The most sexually explicit film in the history of mainstream British cinema, containing unsimulated sex scenes including fellatio, ejaculation and cunnilingus, many in close-up, yesterday had its first screening at Cannes. Michael Winterbottom, the Lancashire-born director of Nine Songs, a love story, said: "I had been thinking for a while about the fact that most cinematic love stories miss out on the physical relationship, and if it is indicated at all everyone knows it is fake.
"Books deal explicitly with sex, as they do with any other subject. Cinema has been extremely conservative and prudish. I wanted to go to the opposite extreme and show a relationship only through sex. Part of the point of making the film was to say, 'What's wrong with showing sex?'" *

The film revolves around a young couple in London, Matt and his American girlfriend Lisa. The sex scenes, which occupy more than half of the film, are intercut with scenes of bands playing, including Franz Ferdinand, the Dandy Warhols, Black Rebel Motorcycle Club and Super Furry Animals. The story is framed by shots of Matt flying over the desolate plains of Antarctica, as he remembers the relationship from afar.

The screening yesterday was at 10am, too soon after breakfast for many viewers. The grunt and huff-and-puff factor in the film is notably high, and the language is strong.

Matt is played by Kieran O'Brien, with whom Winterbottom has worked on a previous film, 24 Hour Party People. However, the woman playing Lisa has asked that her name not be used in coverage of the movie, although it does appear in the credits. "She's not an actress," said Winterbottom. "She really likes the film but she is going back to university and I think she wants to keep a low profile."

Despite the intimacy of the subject-matter, shooting the film was straightforward, according to Winterbottom. Having cast the two leads, a rehearsal was staged, after which they were given the opportunity to leave the project. "After a couple of days it was a case of that was what we were doing, and everyone adapted," he said. It was a matter of going "one step further" than the requirements of conventional, simulated sex scenes.

The film has not yet been given a certificate, though Winterbottom is optimistic. Of the fellatio-and-ejaculation scene, the one likely to give the censors most pause, he said: "We can always take that out."

In the film the couple also attend Michael Nyman's 60th birthday concert, with shots of the composer playing the piano at the Hackney Empire in east London. "I'm very pleased to be in the most sexually explicit film in British film history," said Nyman from Berlin yesterday, "especially as I am not doing anything sexual. I can't wait to see it."

Derek Malcolm, the Guardian's veteran film writer, said: "Nine Songs looks like a porn movie, but it feels like a love story. The sex is used as a metaphor for the rest of the couple's relationship. And it is shot with Winterbottom's customary sensitivity."


-----

*Michael Winterbottom nailed it.

Quote from: cronopio
"Books deal explicitly with sex, as they do with any other subject. Cinema has been extremely conservative and prudish. I wanted to go to the opposite extreme and show a relationship only through sex. Part of the point of making the film was to say, 'What's wrong with showing sex?'"

If that perspective on a relationship makes for a good movie, fine.  But if he's doing that just to go against the grain, I doubt it will be good.

woah, that's hardcore and will never be released in the US

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: hacksparrow

Quote from: godardianone of the few times I can unequivocally agree with Kael (Brian de Palma being my other notable Kael concurrence).

What did she say about DePalma?

She is a longtime adorer of his work and his style, which has an extremely unique and individualistic sort of humor and idiosyncracy, the kind that happens to be exactly up Kael's alley.

On Blow-Out: "I think De Palma has sprung to the place that Altman achieved with films such as McCabe and Mrs. Miller and Nashville and that Coppola reached with the two Godfather movies- that is, to the place where genre is transcended and what we're moved by is an artist's vision."

just bought blow-out -- have been meaning to see it for years -- my #1 all time favorite film is The Conversation, so this is naturally interesting. not a big fan of depalma in general, but the anticipation has been picking at way at me for some time now.

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: hacksparrow

Quote from: godardianone of the few times I can unequivocally agree with Kael (Brian de Palma being my other notable Kael concurrence).

What did she say about DePalma?

She is a longtime adorer of his work and his style, which has an extremely unique and individualistic sort of humor and idiosyncracy, the kind that happens to be exactly up Kael's alley.

On Blow-Out: "I think De Palma has sprung to the place that Altman achieved with films such as McCabe and Mrs. Miller and Nashville and that Coppola reached with the two Godfather movies- that is, to the place where genre is transcended and what we're moved by is an artist's vision."

just bought blow-out -- have been meaning to see it for years -- my #1 all time favorite film is The Conversation, so this is naturally interesting. not a big fan of depalma in general, but the anticipation has been picking at way at me for some time now.

Cannes audience gives standing ovation to Michael Moore film
CANNES, France - (KRT) - Controversial movie maker Michael Moore shook the Cannes Film Festival on Monday by unveiling his anti-Bush documentary to a wildly cheering international audience.

Even those who question Moore's tactics and fact-checking were moved by portions of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and upset by footage of dead Iraqi babies and humiliation of civilians by American soldiers.

The movie - a potential powder keg in this fall's presidential election - got a clamorous 20-minute standing ovation at its first public screening here.

Please SoNowThen take it easy  :| ...

:roll:

Quote from: SoNowThen:roll:

why?  :?

Cos now I'm getting pre-emptive "take it easy"'s.

Whoa whoa whoa... take it easy there, SNT

HEY!! Hey....

don't these standing O records get broken like every year?

Quote from: Pubrickum, Antonio Banderas said on letterman that Shrek 2 got a 15min ovation.

so, whatever that means.

People just stood there clapping for 15 minutes?  Geez.

they're still clapping, but no longer standing.

And now they're clapping with one hand.

NOW THEY'RE CLAPPING WITH THEIR HEAD ON THEIR FEET LOL

OKAY I CHOOSE PEDRO NEXT

RIFF!

now they're eating dry cereal

If there's one thing I could do without is the masturbatory rituals these people engage in. No wonder the Oscars are 4 hours long. For god's sake. 20 minute ovation.
Is this unexpected though? Cannes is  the US loving center of the world known as France.

I will withhold any comments before actually seeing this film, but I have a feeling that this is nothing more than a mere novelty, kind of like a horror film.

From a Jay Stone article about Godard:

Jean-Luc Godard, the eminence grise of French cinema, weighed into the Michael Moore debate Tuesday in a surprising way.

"He's helping Bush in a very underground way that he's not aware of", Godard said about Fahrenheit 9/11, the Moore polemic that blames the president for the Iraq war and hints at connections between the Bush family and terrorist interests. "Bush is less stupid than (Moore) thinks, or so stupid you can't change him".


Asked about his attitudes to Israel and Palestine, he replied, "I still don't really understand why people are fighting up there." He compared the situation to someone asking to take over his apartment because they owned it thousands of years ago. As it happens, Godard said, he'd leave, because he has somewhere to go. He can live in another land. He said it was cinema.

that's deep man.

No more or less than any other interesting comment.

Moore Film "Favorite for Prize"

Director Michael Moore's controversial movie Fahrenheit 9/11 is leading the race to scoop the Cannes Film Festival's top prize, the Palme D'Or. Trade paper Screen International have hailed the film - which exposes links between the families of American President George W. Bush and Al Queda leader Osama Bin Laden and documents the US-led war on terrorism - as the number one contender for the prestigious award, based on the views of critics from around the world. Fahrenheit 9/11's chances of winning the Palme D'Or received a boast on Monday when a screening of the movie was given an unprecedented 15-minute standing ovation at the legendary festival. The film is expected to be released via a third party after Disney banned Miramax from distributing the movie.

'2046' was supposed to premiere tomorrow, but the screenings have all been canceled, because WKW is still working on it.

Also, I hadn't heard about the new Winterbottom film -- I can't wait to see that! It sounds like it could be wonderful. I can't think of another filmmaker who is both so incredibly prolific and still so consistently exciting.

ahh wkw needs to get his shit together.  so no luck for cannes at all--not even towards the end?

More from Godard (I'd like to hear more details about how Moore is "helping" Bush. Seriously- I'm not being facetious. When Godard has something to say, I'm willing to listen. Then again, no-one, but no-one, is ever radical-leftist enough for Godard.)

Legendary French director Jean-Luc Godard became one of the few persons in attendance at the Cannes Film Festival who had negative things to say about Michael Moore's controversial Fahrenheit 9/11 film (although he admitted that he had not seen it). Godard, who described Moore as "halfway intelligent," told reporters that films like Fahrenheit "help Bush more than harm him ... in a very vicious way that [directors like Moore] are not conscious of." Bush, he said, "is less stupid than [Moore] thinks." Godard is visiting Cannes to support his latest film, Our Music, which is being screened outside of the competition. Like Moore's film, Our Music  explores the conscience of nations in conflict. At one point in his news conference, he invited Olivier Derousseau, a leader of the part-time actors and technicians who have been staging a demonstration at the festival to protest cuts in unemployment benefits, to say a few words to the reporters.

Quote from: Ghostboy'2046' was supposed to premiere tomorrow, but the screenings have all been canceled, because WKW is still working on it.

Also, I hadn't heard about the new Winterbottom film -- I can't wait to see that! It sounds like it could be wonderful. I can't think of another filmmaker who is both so incredibly prolific and still so consistently exciting.

Looks like it premiered.   :-D  

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9621653%255E1702,00.html

Missing film premieres in Cannes
From correspondents in Cannes
May 21, 2004

THE Cannes film festival breathed a collective sigh of relief early today at the world premiere of the much-awaited film 2046 by Chinese director Wong Kar-wai -- which was still missing just hours before the screening.

Organisers of the film festival had to rejig programming today to accommodate for the delay in the arrival of the film, one of 19 movies selected to compete for the coveted Palme d'Or.

Production sources said Wong, who directed In The Mood for Love, had missed his plane to France yesterday and was winging it to Cannes overnight carrying the missing 20 per cent of the film in reels edited at the last minute.

The whereabouts of China's lone entry, a poetic film again featuring Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung as well as Gong Li that was five years in the making, has kept the festival on edge for days.

Half an hour before the premiere started, shortly after 7.30pm local time (3.30am AEST), organisers were still unable to confirm whether the film had safely arrived in Cannes.


Best news I've heard all week.

That headline makes it sound like premiers are missing.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThat headline makes it sound like premiers are missing.

:lol:  Classic.

No red carpet, no paparazzi, and the film is unceremoniously shown to no one on a ragged 8mm home-movie screen.

michael moore won palme d'or

Quote from: El Duderinomichael moore won palme d'or

:shock:

What about the other awards?

Palme d'Or to "Fahrenheit 9/11" by Micahel Moore
The Palme d'Or of this 57th edition of the Festival de Cannes was presented by Charlize Theron to Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore.

Grand Prix to "Old Boy" by Park Chan-Wook
The Grand Prix was presented by Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd to Old Boy by Park Chan-Wook.

Best Actress Award to Maggie Cheung for her role in "Clean"
The Best Actress Award goes to Maggie Cheung for her role in Clean by Olivier Assayas

Best Actor Award to Yuuya Yagira for his role in "Nobody Knows"
The Best Actor Award goes to the 14-year old Yuuya Yagira for his role in Nobody Knows by Hirokazu Kore-eda.

Best Director Award goes to Tony Gatlif for "Exils"
The Best Director Award goes to Tony Gatlif for Exils

Best Screenplay Award goes to "Comme une Image" by Agnès Jaoui and Jean-Pierre Bacri
The Best Screenplay Award goes to Comme une Image by Agnès Jaoui and Jean-Pierre Bacri.

The Jury Prize to Irma P. Hall and "Tropical Malady"
The Jury Prize goes to actress Irma P. Hall for her role in The Ladykillers by the Coen brothers and to Tropical Malady from the Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul.

The Camera d'Or goes to "Or" by Keren Yedaya
Jury Président Tim Roth bestowed the Camera d'Or to Or by Israeli director Keren Yedaya.

Camera d'Or Special Mention to "Lu Cheung (Passages)" by Yang Chao and "Bitter Dream" by Mohsen Amiryoussefi
Camera d'Or Special Mention went to two films: Lu Cheung (Passages) by Chinese director Chao Yang and Bitter Dream" by Iranian director Mohsen Amiryoussefi.

Palme d'Or to Short Film "Trafic" by Catalin Mitulescu
At the hands of French actress Jeanne Balibar, the Palme d'Or to a Short Film went to Trafic by Rumanian director Catalin Mitulescu.

Jury Prize to Short Film "Flatlife" by Jonas Geirnaert
Jury Prize to a Short Film goes to Flatlife by Belgian director Jonas Geirnaert.

HAHA Stefen, you should've taken that bet I made you for the avatar!

But I'm glad you didn't... cuz Moore actually won.   :shock:

It's the first time that kusturica goes to a festival and wins nothing. :cry:

Quote from: rustinglassIt's the first time that kusturica goes to a festival and wins nothing. :cry:

He's a Porto fan and the french this year aren't really Porto fans... quite the contrary :|

Tarantino........ hates FC PORTO!!!!!! That's why michael moore got the palme d'or!
I hope that, when Derlei  scores the first goal, he says "That's for Kusturica, motherfucker!"

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aftonbladet.se%2Fnoje%2F0405%2F22%2Fmm375.jpg&hash=06c1295d97f0fad063d9948489af70059289dd5a)

It'd be interesting if there was a Republican who made these sorts of politically themed documentaries, and then that person and Michael Moore would duke it out.

... but that'd never happen cuz the Republican way of dealing with problems is to just move onto something else, or maybe take a nap and see if things get better from there.  Whereas Michael Moore can make these sorts of movie because Democrats are better at holding a grudge and not letting something just go.

But either way, there is no actively political filmmaker to help the Republican party defend themselves against Moore!  I mean, Fahreinheit 9/11 is gonna come out and then Bush is just gonna have to sit there and take it!

However, more importantly, Michael Moore is dressed well (well enough, anyway) for the occasion!  Yay, he looks all right in that pic!

The right has commentators. The left has artists.

Quote from: matt35mmWhereas Michael Moore can make these sorts of movie because Democrats are better at holding a grudge and not letting something just go.

Letting what go? The stolen election? The war in Iraq? The war in Afghanistan? The alienation of the US from the rest of the world? You're right, Democrats are holding grudge.

Quote from: kotte, to matt35mm,... You're right...

:-D  Thanks!

(While I personally don't hold grudges for very long--mostly because I have a terrible memory--I could be just as pissed at Bush.  Even though I forget all the stupid things that Bush has done in the past, he continually does more stupid things to piss me off)

Of course, I have plenty of international experience.  In fact, most of the people I know who have more international experience hate Bush.  Actually it doesn't really take much to dislike Bush, does it?

Unfortunately, half the people that will be voting this November have never been outside of the United States.   :|

Quote from: kotteThe war in Afghanistan?

Also, what war in Afghanistan?




Exactly.  He just moved the fuck on to Iraq cuz he started something that he couldn't finish.  Bravo, Mr. President.

Quote from: mutinycoThe right has commentators. The left has artists.

shit, man, that's a good line...

My dad actually dated Brigitte Bardot. 8)

Quote from: kotteMy dad actually dated Brigitte Bardot. 8)

well, who didn't?

You, actually.

i just have nothing to say to that...

i'll crawl back, now...

So much for me caring about the Palme D'Or ever again...

Quote from: SoNowThenSo much for me caring about the Palme D'Or ever again...

have you seen Fahrenheidt 9-11?

Quote from: SHAFTR

Quote from: SoNowThenSo much for me caring about the Palme D'Or ever again...

have you seen Fahrenheidt 9-11?

Betting that's just a typical conservative knee-jerk reaction.  No offense intended or anything, but all you do is discredit yourself when you make these comments without experiencing the films (first Almodovar -- did we mention Talk to her is great? -- and now Moore's F911).  It's hard to avoid it, I know, and I'm guilty of doing it, too.  But people who are less ignorant, such as filmmakers and cinephiles, should know the hazards of doing this.

Me, I'm happy for Moore.  He really deserves it (and I'm basing this on the quality of his previous works as I haven't seen F911 yet -- the quality of his past stuff is basis enough to give him recognition).  And of course, I can't wait to see the film to see if it lives up to the accolades.

nothing surprising about SNT's reaction.

he is known for judging things he's never seen or ever plans to see. he's championing 2046 having heard nothing good about it, saying it's incomplete, but F911 is already dismissed despite good reviews and potentially being incomplete also.

i mean, really, no surprises there.

Let's lynch that Canadian son of a bitch!

Quote from: Pubrick
i mean, really, no surprises there.

dont forget about his apprehesion to see any Pedro films

He hasn't seen any Pedro films?

This could get ugly. Like a beatup transvestite.

I already said it, and now you are being redirected to the beginning of the thread (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=5517&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0).  Fasten your seatbelts.  It's not the first time, and it probably won't be the last.

Quote from: El ScorchozHe hasn't seen any Pedro films?

I hear he doesn't like products, and that he eats light. The light of children.

You can see the whole ceremony here:
http://www.festival-cannes.fr/video/video.asx?uid=71399

I hear he even sucks the blood of white virgins!

I hear he makes some films

Truth wins at Cannes, says Moore
Source: The Star

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theage.com.au%2Fffximage%2F2004%2F05%2F23%2F23MOORE_A%2C0.jpg&hash=5b59fc83563225084c6eacf7cad341f0745721bc)

MICHAEL Moore's unceasing campaign against US President George W. Bush gained momentum yesterday when his new film Fahrenheit 9/11 became the first documentary in 48 years to win the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival.

"What have you done?," said an overwhelmed Moore when he took the stage to accept the award that culminated a typically awkward and unpredictable, but atypically politicized, four-minute ceremony. At the announcement of the major prize, the Palme d'Or, the tuxedo and evening-gown studded crowd stood on its feet and cheered.

Looking to jury president Quentin Tarantino, Moore joked, "You did that just to mess with me," before moving on to more serious matters.

Admitting that the last six months, during which Fahrenheit 9/11 has been at the centre of a highly publicized dispute with The Walt Disney Company over its distribution future, Moore said, "I have a sneaking suspicion that what you have done will ensure that the American people will see this movie. I can't thank you enough for this.

"Many people want the truth put away, put in a closet," he said, "and you have taken it out of the closet."

Quoting President Abraham Lincoln, whom he described as "a different kind of Republican president," Moore said, "`Give the people the truth and the republic will be saved.'"

Alluding to the U.S. election in November, Moore concluded by saying he wanted to dedicate the next six months to "making sure that those who have died in Iraq have not died in vain."

Fahrenheit 9/11 may become the most financially successful documentary in history – bettering Moore's own record, set by Bowling for Columbine, which won an Oscar and netted about $US120 million ($172 million). It is the first documentary to win the Palme D'or since Jacques Cousteau's The Silent World in 1956. The award should result in a rush by distributors willing to show the film in the US, where it is currently without a backer.

Nurturing his image as an underdog, Moore has alleged that Walt Disney chief Michael Eisner stopped Disney's edgy subsidiary, Miramax Films, from distributing the film in the US because Disney did not want to endanger tax perks it enjoyed for its theme parks in Florida, where Mr Bush's brother, Jeb, is Governor.

However, insiders said Disney was never going to distribute the film and did not renege on any deal because of political pressure.

A White House spokesman responded to Moore's French triumph by saying "it's a free country" and "everyone has the right to say what they want".

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestar.com%2Fimages%2Fthestar%2Fimg%2F040523_moore_michael_250.jpg&hash=721d034155657e7eaf8457945fbff45a2e921dc8)

As predicted, the awards granted by Tarantino's jury — which also included the American actress Kathleen Turner, British actress Tilda Swinton, Hong Kong filmmaker Tsui Hark and others — was eccentric in its choices.

After providing special Jury Prizes to Irma P. Hall's performance in Joel and Ethan Coen's The Ladykillers and the Thailand-made Tropical Malady, Tarantino's jury awarded the best scenario prize to Agnes Jaoui and Jean-Pierre Bacri for Jaoui's Look At Me, best director to Tony Gatlif for Exiles, best male performance to 14-year-old Yagria Yuuya for the Japanese-made Nobody Knows and best actress to Maggie Cheung's performance in the French-Canadian-U.K. co-production Clean.

The jury's Grand Prize was awarded to the hyper-slick and violent Korean revenge drama Old Boy.

While the presentation of the Palme d'Or provided the climax to a festival that has been considerably more political, both on and offscreen, than most in memory, Moore's comments weren't the only to stir the crowd with rhetoric.

Winning a prize for his short film Flatlife, filmmaker Jonas Geirnaert of Belgium, implored the organizers of the festival to make it "more like a film festival and less like a business festival," and left the podium after telling Americans "Don't vote Bush." Later, the president of the jury awarding the prize for best first feature, Tim Roth, endorsed the sentiment and re-stated it.

Karen Yedara, an Israeli director whose film Or won the Camera d'Or for first feature, took her time at the podium as an opportunity to castigate the Israeli government for its recent actions in Gaza. Referring to the "condition of slavery" currently being imposed on "three million Palestinians," she said, "I love my country but I want to help Palestinians get what they deserve."

The festival concludes tomorrow with a first: A press conference in which Tarantino's jury will discuss their choices and deliberations.

Also at Cannes, two short animated films from Canada's National Film Board won four prizes. Chris Landreth's 3D-animated film Ryan won the Kodak Discovery Award, the Young Critic's Prize and the Canal + Prize for Best Short Film, while L'homme sans ombre (Man Without A Shadow) by Georges Schwizgebel won the Young Audience Prize.

Bring on the heat, baby. I'll take it all. F 9/11 gets the longest applause in Cannes history. Hmm. At a festival that's shown 8 1/2, La Dolce Vita, L'Avventura, Pulp Fiction, Taxi Driver, the list could go on and on. It was a political move, and that's what disgusts me. It'll be nothing more than a footnote in cinema in the future. Those other movies mentioned above are NOT footnotes. I don't have to see this to gauge the reasoning of giving it a prize. I just held out the naive hope that Cannes was about the movies.

So everyone can be mad about my opinion. Whatever. Someone had to say something. Now let's go on for 7 pages about how I'm "wrong". Preach to the choir.

Quote from: MavisI hear he doesn't like products, and that he eats light. The light of children.

I want to rip this off SO BAD :(

dude, where does your hatred for the movie come from? you haven't even seen it yet. is "political" your only argument? What's wrong with being "political"? How do you know it's only a footnote? oh, do you have a time machine?

And even if you did see the film and hated it, what's this "I thought cannes was about film"? It's not "Cannes" giving out the awards, it's the jury and tarantino, the president, is known for being apolitical, and he's known for his wide knowledge of cinema.
Why don't you, like myself, hope that the film is that good, instead of bashing it and the whole film festival?

It will only be a footnote if Bush wins. If he loses, and this influences the voting, it will go down as one of the most important films ever made.

Quote from: rustinglassdude, where does your hatred for the movie come from? you haven't even seen it yet. is "political" your only argument? What's wrong with being "political"?

i think SNT is just saying that he thinks this won, not because of how great a film it is, but because everyone in hollywood and outside of the US, like france, hates bush.  it won because of the politics, not because michael moore is doing something revolutionary with THIS film over his last few.

Quote from: mutinycoIt will only be a footnote if Bush wins. If he loses, and this influences the voting, it will go down as one of the most important films ever made.

This is what I actually think will happen. I believe this is the most important documentary ever made.

Quote from: kotte

Quote from: mutinycoIt will only be a footnote if Bush wins. If he loses, and this influences the voting, it will go down as one of the most important films ever made.

This is what I actually think will happen. I believe this is the most important documentary ever made.

why?  you havent seen it yet either.  isnt making that sort of statement just as ignorant as SNT saying this makes the palme lose all credibility?

Quote from: themodernage02

Quote from: kotte

Quote from: mutinycoIt will only be a footnote if Bush wins. If he loses, and this influences the voting, it will go down as one of the most important films ever made.

This is what I actually think will happen. I believe this is the most important documentary ever made.

why?  you havent seen it yet either.  isnt making that sort of statement just as ignorant as SNT saying this makes the palme lose all credibility?

You're absolutely right.
I've heard and read so many things about, I'm just absolutely excited.

But yeah, it was a bit ignorant.

Quote from: kotteBut yeah, it was a bit ignorant.

I actually don't think so. You did not see te film yet, but you feel like it can have something that might change things... that is a proof that it can be important.

Yeah, I didn't say it would be one of the BEST films ever made. I said it would be one of the most IMPORTANT. Please learn the difference. On another note:

Moore's Politics on Center Stage at Cannes
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: May 23, 2004

Filed at 1:55 p.m. ET

CANNES, France (AP) -- ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' put Michael Moore's politics at center stage at the Cannes Film Festival. And there they stayed, right up to the closing act, when he accepted the top prize.

The message of Moore's film -- that White House foreign policy since the Sept. 11 attacks has been disastrous -- generated so much sympathy here that jury president Quentin Tarantino worried Moore might misinterpret the jury's intentions.

``When I was on stage with Michael Moore, I knew all this politics crap would be brought up,'' the ``Kill Bill'' director said Sunday, a day after awarding Moore the Palme d'Or, the festival's highest honor.

So ``I just whispered in his ear and said, `I just want you to know it was not because of the politics that you won this award,''' Tarantino said. ```You won it because we thought it was the best film that we saw.'''

The whispered exchange between the two Academy Award winners underlined how much effect Moore's politics had on this festival.

The awards ceremony started out with a political statement inspired by Moore. Belgian director Jonas Geirnaert, a winner for his short film, used his first big break as a filmmaker to talk about Moore's movie and urge Americans not to vote for President Bush.

Moore's Cannes appearances have given him a much wider following internationally, including in Europe, where people love his anti-Bush message and are charmed by his folksy all-American image. His documentary about gun culture in America, ``Bowling for Columbine,'' won a special prize here two years ago.

The new movie had one of the longest standing ovations in recent memory -- which may have had something to do with his politics as well as his filmmaking. But Moore says he wants to be judged on his skills as a director.

``If I wanted to make a political speech, I'd run for office,'' Moore told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. ``I'm a filmmaker, and I wanted to make a movie for people to go see it.''

``Fahrenheit 9/11'' accuses the Bush camp of stealing the 2000 election, overlooking terrorism warnings before Sept. 11 and fanning fears of more attacks to secure Americans' support for the Iraq war.

Moore's assault on U.S. policy got him into trouble with Disney, which refused to let subsidiary Miramax release ``Fahrenheit 9/11.''

He is still trying to work out a deal for U.S. distribution but thinks the win at Cannes will guarantee him an American audience. He also cites the makeup of the nine-member jury -- four out of nine are Americans -- as proof of the strong reaction the film could have in the United States.

``I would be surprised within the next 24 hours if we don't have somebody,'' Moore said. ``Miramax has been fielding calls all day.''

He hopes to have the film in U.S. theaters by July. But he is cynical about how much impact it could have on the U.S. presidential election in November.

``If some of those (viewers) end up going and deciding to become good citizens by exercising the right to vote, great,'' he said. ``But let's be honest. ... You have to start with pretty low expectations in terms of the political end of this when you live in a country where half the people don't vote.''

The new movie is darker in tone than ``Bowling for Columbine,'' and includes grisly war footage. But the filmmaker also mixed in humor to get his point across -- a talent that the jury singled out in explaining what made Moore special.

Moore's sense of humor came out on awards night, too, when he couldn't resist thanking his ``cast'' -- the U.S. Cabinet, and particularly Bush, whose speaking blunders turn up in the movie.

``He's got the funniest lines in the film,'' Moore joked. ``I'll be eternally grateful to him.''

Quote from: SoNowThenIt was a political move, and that's what disgusts me. It'll be nothing more than a footnote in cinema in the future.

Has Roger & Me become a "footnote"? Have other political movies become footnotes?

Do political movies in general disgust you? Does political movies winning awards disgust you?

Do political movies that you disagree with disgust you? Does political movies that you disagree with winning awards disgust you?

Quote from: SoNowThenSo everyone can be mad about my opinion. Whatever. Someone had to say something. Now let's go on for 7 pages about how I'm "wrong". Preach to the choir.

Do you really hope to have any meaningful discussion about this with that amount of cynical baggage? And what is that supposed to mean after you said this?

Quote from: SoNowThenBring on the heat, baby. I'll take it all.

Just imagine The Conformist and Taxi Driver without their politics!

I think SoNowThen has a valid point.  I mean, let's face it: the majority of the panel weren't American, and it's not a stretch to think that MOST of the world hates this Administration, so it's quite possible that politics played a large role in this film winning the Palm...can anyone argue that it's NOT a political movie?  But I do think that this film has the potential to be a GREAT film at the same time, especially if it opens the eyes of voters in November.

There were 4 Americans on the jury, including the president. I guarantee you, if they weren't behind it, it wouldn't have won. Even Tarantino said it was the best. Personally, I like politics in film. Not always, but they are a rather important part of our society. Even Citizen Kane was HIGHLY political.

But my point has nothing to do with the film's overall quality. Quite simply, if this film contributes to the election's outcome it WILL be one of the most important films ever. Period. A motion picture that helped change history. It's just that simple. If this happens, this film will be taught in film school for the rest of time.

QuoteQuite simply, if this film contributes to the election's outcome it WILL be one of the most important films ever. Period.

Exactly.

I think a lot of them Americans have this inflated images of themselves that they're hated/ misunderstood everywhere in the world, that's not true.  Dogville was severely anti-fundamentalist America (one could argue the same America Bush's representing) and it lost last year, despite Von Trier being the president of the jury.  I think the folks at Cannes are a little bit more sophisticated than your average daily show with jon stewart crowd.  unless they're in countries where America is directly responsible for their misery, most people in the world, I dare say, don't "hate" America or Bush, or don't really care that much either way.

Quote from: rustinglassYou can see the whole ceremony here:
http://www.festival-cannes.fr/video/video.asx?uid=71399

yep and if anyone wants to see the jury explaining themselves u can check it here (http://www.festival-cannes.fr/archives/videos_archives.php?langue=6002&edition=2004&jour=23&).

Quote from: kotte

Quote from: mutinycoIt will only be a footnote if Bush wins. If he loses, and this influences the voting, it will go down as one of the most important films ever made.

This is what I actually think will happen. I believe this is the most important documentary ever made.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse there.  Here's why: you can't measure whether this film actually will have an impact, because you can't directly link those who saw it with those who changed their votes, or by how much this film was a factor.  Whereas, documentaries such as Harlan County, U.S.A. and The Thin Blue Line DID change lives.  The impact of those two films were more direct and concentrated, although the impact was only felt by a small group of people.  You would be right in saying there was some immeasurable impact for the world if and only if Kerry gets elected.  But the impact may still remain even if Bush wins.  This is why it's such a blurry issue.  Oh, and what mutinyco said.

i think the real issue here is that the film may never be judged on its own merits by the public at large. The win at cannes will undoubtedly help it to be seen in America but might it also create an even bigger backlash against it? I mean, there are those who will automatically agree with Moore's film and position, and those that will automatically disagree with it. But for those inbetweeners who would actually like to see and judge it for themselves this might bolster the anti-Moore camp. After all so much people decide what to watch based on tv reports and talking heads' opinions. The fact that this addmittedly anti-Bush film has gotten the highest endorsement from the greatest FRENCH film festival will no doubt be an easy fact to exploit. I can see people who might have been interested deciding not to see it, or at elast not to support its theatrical run, b/c they could dismiss it as another extreme left-wing anti-Bush hate fest supported by a nation who makes no bones about their hatred for the current American government.

It may be too difficult to seperate Fahrenheit 9/11 from all the anti-Bush broo-haha for people to take it seriously as a valid political comment. And it may be too difficult to seperate Cannes from the notion that its just another symbol of France's percieved hatred of all things American gov't.
It could prove detremental to both.

Michael Moore has valid points that should be addressed by our society. I think he is actually damaging his ability to be taken seriously by the majority of the nation by marginalizing himself so much. He doesn't do much to fight the image of him that is being created by FOX News and their ilk. His passion may be his downfall. I definately think more people will dismiss him outright if he continues to cultivate his radical persona. Michael Moore is most effective when he plays up 'the all-american guy from an all american family in an all american town just trying to follow the true american dream'

Excellent post.  But...

Quote from: analogzombieMichael Moore is most effective when he plays up 'the all-american guy from an all american family in an all american town just trying to follow the true american dream'

This is a problem, too.  Moore really has put himself in quite the Catch-22, "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.  It's really unfortunate.  If he does play up the "average Joe" angle, he is criticized for reaping the benefits of the riches he's acquired in his success, while championing lower-class people and criticizing capitalism.  He can't seem to win.

We might be blaming the wrong person for Moore's image problem. He's the most dangerous thing to the most powerful interests in the country, and of course they will do anything to destroy his image. They haven't done it yet because he's a master manipulator of media.

I don't know why a lot of Americans think that the French hate them or their governement. Because this is not the case. Remember the French newspaper titling on Sept. 12, 2001 "Nous sommes tous des Américains" -We are all Americans.
But it is true that a lot of Europeans consider Bush as an awfully stupid person that cannot even talk in whole sentences. This is a picture Michael Moore wants to paint as well. Godard has criticized Michael Moore by saying "Bush est moins bête que Moore ne le croit et lui est à moitié intelligent. Il ne fait pas de différence entre une image et un texte." (Bush is less stupid than Moore thinks and he [Moore] is only half intelligent. He confuses an image with a text.)

I think Godard is right. I don't agree with Bush's policies but I consider Moore as the Kenneth Starr of the American left. Also, it is, in my opinion, dangerous to portray Bush as a moron, for slyness and hence the art of convincing doesn't shine through the curtains of stupidity .

Quote from: kelvinI don't know why a lot of Americans think that the French hate them or their governement. Because this is not the case. Remember the French newspaper titling on Sept. 12, 2001 "Nous sommes tous des Américains" -We are all Americans.
But it is true that a lot of Europeans consider Bush as an awfully stupid person that cannot even talk in whole sentences. This is a picture Michael Moore wants to paint as well. Godard has criticized Michael Moore by saying "Bush est moins bête que Moore ne le croit et lui est à moitié intelligent. Il ne fait pas de différence entre une image et un texte." (Bush is less stupid than Moore thinks and he [Moore] is only half intelligent. He confuses an image with a text.)

I think Godard is right. I don't agree with Bush's policies but I consider Moore as the Kenneth Starr of the American left. Also, it is, in my opinion, dangerous to portray Bush as a moron, for slyness and hence the art of convincing doesn't shine through the curtains of stupidity .

those are good points. I don't think the French people hate Americans per se, just as I don't think Americans hate French people. But I do think that's the impression the US media gives and the impression shared by most Americans, who admittedly don't really think for themselves. The reality I think is that Bush's post 9/11 world view is a narrow one and it alienates many nations including France. It's also a good point to not dismiss Bush as stupid, he isn't. A billionaire playboy who has had his life handed to him? ok sure, but not stupid. Bush is just the type of person that sticks to their convictions. After 9/11 Bush decided with his cabinet, who is evil and who is good. He made a plan for better or worse, to deal with terrorism and the new threats as he saw them. He believes he must follow these convictions through these 'troubled times'. This line of thought doesn't leave much room for political manuevering, which has put nations like Germany and France, who were eager to flex their newly developed international muscle, in awkward positions.

Bush is not stupid, he is blindly driven.

But the level of anti-Bush sentiment is reaching ridiculous heights lately. With Moore basically stating he wants to spoil the election, I think the quote was something like "I want this movie to come out in time to effect the election b/c I don't want the democrats to screw it up again", the Bush opposition is seeming more and more vicious for personal reasons and less respectable. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot. As always Godard hits it on the head.

Quote from: kelvinit is, in my opinion, dangerous to portray Bush as a moron, for slyness and hence the art of convincing doesn't shine through the curtains of stupidity .

There is a culture here that enjoys making fun of Bush, hyperbolically describing his stupidity. Moore is tapping into that a little. But I agree that that culture, by itself, is dangerous. There's a huge difference between saying Bush is a willing puppet and Bush is clueless. I think Moore recognizes how dangerously intelligent the Bush administration is, and I don't see any evidence that suggests otherwise.

i personally am very tired of all the anti-french sentiment in this country.  the bigotry of this country is astounding, but it's the acceptance of that bigotry that really bothers me.  americans, for the most part, have a very limited viewpoint of the world, a "for us or against us" sort of viewpoint.  when i was in france this past winter i saw no ill-will towards me or american people in general.

Quote from: xerxesi personally am very tired of all the anti-french sentiment in this country.  the bigotry of this country is astounding, but it’s the acceptance of that bigotry that really bothers me.  americans, for the most part, have a very limited viewpoint of the world, a “for us or against us” sort of viewpoint.  when i was in france this past winter i saw no ill-will towards me or american people in general.

I can agree with your sentiments except for one minor point. I;'ve been to japan, most of Europe, the Uk and some South American countries, I find that all people the world over can be ignorant. The difference is as Americans we do not necessarily have to deal with people from other nations. Everyone else does. Not only b/c they actually have many more nations next door and we have oceans that seperate us from the wider world, but b/c the US has a greater capacity to be self sufficient. We deal with the other nations in the world, yet we do not have to. Other nations, to stabalize their economies and their quality of life, are far more dependent on the US and other nations than we are of them.

Overall I think the 'Arrogant American' is a myth. Sure some people fir that mold, but that's true the world over. What I mean is there are Americans who hate other people simply b/c they are from another culture and there are those people in the world that hate Americans simply b/c we're Americans. I was bombarded with so much negative Americanism while I was in the Netherlands and Italy I felt as if I was personally responsible for Bush.

There are ignorant people all over the world. After all the majority of humans are stupid, insipid creatures. Just b/c the peasants now drive Hondas and Fiats does not mean they no longer exist. The mentality of ignorance is alive and well, and its not uniquely American.

I think America is completely dependent on other countries. Witness our trade imbalance and debt. The difference between us and other countries is that most citizens don't have to DIRECTLY deal with foreigners. We're able to create a cozy cocoon. That's also why we overreact to terrorism. Whereas every other country on Earth has experienced it at some time, we're acting immature by having gone ape shit and completely rewritten our domestic and international laws. And this was Bush's doing, and Moore's argument: that the administration used 9/11 to manipluate the public and hijack the nation's agenda.

Quote from: analogzombieAfter all the majority of humans are stupid, insipid creatures. Just b/c the peasants now drive Hondas and Fiats does not mean they no longer exist. The mentality of ignorance is alive and well, and its not uniquely American.

You rule.

Even Al Jazeera repeatedly makes a distinction between the American government and the American people.

Quote from: Pubrick

Quote from: rustinglassYou can see the whole ceremony here:
http://www.festival-cannes.fr/video/video.asx?uid=71399

yep and if anyone wants to see the jury explaining themselves u can check it here (http://www.festival-cannes.fr/archives/videos_archives.php?langue=6002&edition=2004&jour=23&).

p, just stop being a dick already, god.

Quote from: Stefen

Quote from: Pubrick

Quote from: rustinglassYou can see the whole ceremony here:
http://www.festival-cannes.fr/video/video.asx?uid=71399

yep and if anyone wants to see the jury explaining themselves u can check it here (http://www.festival-cannes.fr/archives/videos_archives.php?langue=6002&edition=2004&jour=23&).

p, just stop being a dick already, god.

aight, now's the time : I don't like you, Stefen.  just stay away from xixax  please

... oh you two...  :roll:  :?  :|  :)  :o  :-D  :lol:

f you crono. Like i wanted a little mexican friend anyway. And Matt, just stay off my goatse, man. Poser.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileys.smileycentral.com%2Fcat%2F23%2F23_29_111.gif&hash=b4207b0bb11236e486dffd63bb2234fdab73c62c)

... I just learned what a goatse is.   :shock:

Quote from: matt35mm... I just learned what a goatse is.   :shock:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digikitten.com%2Fplayhousev2%2Ffiles%2Fsaywhut%2Fown3d.jpg&hash=b2b81a0355d56dceef503ecb2c66b84814882cd7)

I hate people who didn't see goatse around the same time period I did

Quote from: analogzombieI find that all people the world over can be ignorant.

Me too

Quote from: analogzombieThe difference is as Americans we do not necessarily have to deal with people from other nations..

?

Quote from: analogzombiethe US has a greater capacity to be self sufficient. .

i thought it was Cuba  :roll:

Quote from: analogzombieWe deal with the other nations in the world, yet we do not have to..

?

Quote from: analogzombieOther nations, to stabalize their economies and their quality of life, are far more dependent on the US and other nations than we are of them..

?

Quote from: analogzombieThere are ignorant people all over the world. After all the majority of humans are stupid, insipid creatures.

That's true my friend, THAT is true...

Quote from: Stefenp, just stop being a dick already, god.

Normally we're on different levels, but I don't see how P was being a dick there...

Quote from: SleuthI hate people who didn't see goatse around the same time period I did

Yeah.  I remember seeing it a long time ago, and then some friend of mine came across it and showed it to me and I was like "OK, nothing I haven't seen before." And there was this long pause, until I explained to him I had seen that picture a long time ago.

Quote from: Vile5

Quote from: analogzombieI find that all people the world over can be ignorant.

Me too

Quote from: analogzombieThe difference is as Americans we do not necessarily have to deal with people from other nations..

?

Quote from: analogzombiethe US has a greater capacity to be self sufficient. .

i thought it was Cuba  :roll:

Quote from: analogzombieWe deal with the other nations in the world, yet we do not have to..

?

Quote from: analogzombieOther nations, to stabalize their economies and their quality of life, are far more dependent on the US and other nations than we are of them..

?

Quote from: analogzombieThere are ignorant people all over the world. After all the majority of humans are stupid, insipid creatures.

That's true my friend, THAT is true...

sorry if you didn't understand my post, i will try to address your ? marks

- as americans we do not come into contact with as many multi-nationals as say most Europeans. The size of our country and its relative isolation from nations other than canada and mexico keep us that way. When living in Europe say Germany, as I did, you ineract on a dail;y basis with people from Italy, Austria, England, Romania, North Africa etc... Europe is a thoroughfare.

- by being self- suffieicent of course I mean that, America, unlike almost all other countries has the ability to produce most of its own resources. We may choos not to b/c of trad deals or comparative advantages that may make it more costly for us to do so, but the ability is there. And that ability gives us a sort of cushion when dealing with nations around the world. We may desire goods and products from toher nations, but if there was ever a lock-down on certain items we would be able to get by on our own.

- once again, 'by dealing with other nations' it has something to do with being self-suffiecient, except in this case we are militarily self-suffiecient. America, unlike many nations is fully capable of defending itself without help from the UN or allies. we have the capacity to project unilateral force anywhere in the world. So we do not necessarily HAVE to negotiate with North Korea to have them turn over nuclear weapons. Whereas Japan has no other choice but to negotiate and seek help from its allies.

- America is prosperous enough to maintain the relative quality of life of its citizens without the aid of other nations. If international trade was disrupted for a prolonged period there would be an extreme period of adjustment , but the US is a big enough market that we could conceivably produce, sell and use almost everything goood or service ourselves. Unlike other nations that rely hevaily on foreign aid, or trade to balance their books. We have seen in France and Germany recently, that the loss of some American trade and aide packages has had a detremental effect on their already sliding economy. An even better example is Saudi Arabia. All of the wealth and prosperity they enjoy is due to their oil export. If that export were cut off, or the market dried up, their entire society would crumble in a matter of years. Whereas The US, has a diversified enough economy that the death of one income stream would not necessarily destroy the entire economy.

We should take the last few pages out of the Cannes thread and make it into its own thread. Great stuff, though, guys.

I'm of the opinion that Americans are rather narrow-minded. I get really irritated at least once a day when someone says something about the French. I'll ask what makes them feel that way. Just cuz, they say. French are stupid frog-assholes. I ask if they've ever met a Frenchman. You don't need to. Granted, this is all kid-stuff (which in a way just shows how the media that paints the culture like that easily reaches children, who as everyone knows are the future), but it still pisses me off. I don't know if everywhere in the world is like that, but I certainly think Americans suffer from Americanitis.

Quote from: Chest RockwellWe should take the last few pages out of the Cannes thread and make it into its own thread.

do i dare push the secret virgin thread-splitting button?

Nah, it's fun to watch threads evolve. Let's see where it goes.

Quote from: analogzombie

Quote from: Vile5

Quote from: analogzombieI find that all people the world over can be ignorant.

Me too

Quote from: analogzombieThe difference is as Americans we do not necessarily have to deal with people from other nations..

?

Quote from: analogzombiethe US has a greater capacity to be self sufficient. .

i thought it was Cuba  :roll:

Quote from: analogzombieWe deal with the other nations in the world, yet we do not have to..

?

Quote from: analogzombieOther nations, to stabalize their economies and their quality of life, are far more dependent on the US and other nations than we are of them..

?

Quote from: analogzombieThere are ignorant people all over the world. After all the majority of humans are stupid, insipid creatures.

That's true my friend, THAT is true...

sorry if you didn't understand my post, i will try to address your ? marks

- as americans we do not come into contact with as many multi-nationals as say most Europeans. The size of our country and its relative isolation from nations other than canada and mexico keep us that way. When living in Europe say Germany, as I did, you ineract on a dail;y basis with people from Italy, Austria, England, Romania, North Africa etc... Europe is a thoroughfare.

- by being self- suffieicent of course I mean that, America, unlike almost all other countries has the ability to produce most of its own resources. We may choos not to b/c of trad deals or comparative advantages that may make it more costly for us to do so, but the ability is there. And that ability gives us a sort of cushion when dealing with nations around the world. We may desire goods and products from toher nations, but if there was ever a lock-down on certain items we would be able to get by on our own.

- once again, 'by dealing with other nations' it has something to do with being self-suffiecient, except in this case we are militarily self-suffiecient. America, unlike many nations is fully capable of defending itself without help from the UN or allies. we have the capacity to project unilateral force anywhere in the world. So we do not necessarily HAVE to negotiate with North Korea to have them turn over nuclear weapons. Whereas Japan has no other choice but to negotiate and seek help from its allies.

- America is prosperous enough to maintain the relative quality of life of its citizens without the aid of other nations. If international trade was disrupted for a prolonged period there would be an extreme period of adjustment , but the US is a big enough market that we could conceivably produce, sell and use almost everything goood or service ourselves. Unlike other nations that rely hevaily on foreign aid, or trade to balance their books. We have seen in France and Germany recently, that the loss of some American trade and aide packages has had a detremental effect on their already sliding economy. An even better example is Saudi Arabia. All of the wealth and prosperity they enjoy is due to their oil export. If that export were cut off, or the market dried up, their entire society would crumble in a matter of years. Whereas The US, has a diversified enough economy that the death of one income stream would not necessarily destroy the entire economy.

if i'd refute your arguments we'll start an interesting but endless discussion, so let's talk about movies again!  :wink:

Quote from: analogzombieonce again, 'by dealing with other nations' it has something to do with being self-suffiecient, except in this case we are militarily self-suffiecient. America, unlike many nations is fully capable of defending itself without help from the UN or allies. we have the capacity to project unilateral force anywhere in the world. So we do not necessarily HAVE to negotiate with North Korea to have them turn over nuclear weapons. Whereas Japan has no other choice but to negotiate and seek help from its allies.

I really don't think we're as militarily independent as you think. Our military is huge and technologically advanced, but not enough to fend off the rest of the world (without starting nuclear war). The biggest reason we have such huge military power is our foreign aid and strategic alliances with dictators. Where would our military strength be if we weren't in bed with Saudi Arabia & Pakistan or if we stopped giving Israel helicopters and weapons to kill Palestinians? There is no innocent self-sufficient US military power and there never will be. Try being an arrogant & violent world power and surviving without allies... our most important ones are the most dangerous and oppressive ones, and it's always been like that post-WW2.

Quote from: picolasdo i dare push the secret virgin thread-splitting button?

I did it once.  :yabbse-lipsrsealed:

I don't know if this has been posted or not, but I realize the Jury Defense has.  I was unable to view it, though.  Haven't figured that one out yet.  Anyway:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-nws-cannes23s1.html

Quote from: Quentin Tarantino said not"This prize was not for politics. It won because it was the best film."

That was to Ebert, backstage at Cannes.

So much for getting this thread back on topic, but I thought I'd take a shot.

Quote from: Quentin Tarantino said not"This prize was not for politics. It won because it was the best film."

do you think the jury would've actually said "we didnt know if it was the best film, but felt voting it the best would send a message that we agree with its politics and it is a film that should be seen."  of course, they're gonna say it wasnt for politics, but that doesnt mean it wasnt a factor.

Quote from: themodernage02

Quote from: Quentin Tarantino said not"This prize was not for politics. It won because it was the best film."

do you think the jury would've actually said "we didnt know if it was the best film, but felt voting it the best would send a message that we agree with its politics and it is a film that should be seen."  of course, they're gonna say it wasnt for politics, but that doesnt mean it wasnt a factor.

If you watch the press conference the jury gave, they say that they chose the film that will prevail the most out of all in competition. Quentin says a zillion times that it had nothing to do with 'politics crap'. And one is left wondering , hm.

michael m$$re
+
tarantino
=

2 lovers
2gether
4 ever

Quote from: NEON MERCURYmichael m$$re
+
tarantino
=

2 lovers
2gether
4 ever

i don't think your formula is right there, man.

Yeah, especially when Tarantino keeps repeating the phrase, "that politics crap."

Quote from: NEON MERCURYmichael m$$re

dude you misspelled michael moore.

it's funny how all of a sudden ppl wanna pretend QT is political.

Of course Tarantino liked it -- it's a real-life revenge tale. By the way, Before Sunset takes a few jabs at the French/America thing.

I can't wait to see Before Sunset.

Xixax, your prodigal son has returned.

Quote from: cronopio

Quote from: themodernage02

Quote from: Quentin Tarantino said not"This prize was not for politics. It won because it was the best film."

do you think the jury would've actually said "we didnt know if it was the best film, but felt voting it the best would send a message that we agree with its politics and it is a film that should be seen."  of course, they're gonna say it wasnt for politics, but that doesnt mean it wasnt a factor.

If you watch the press conference the jury gave, they say that they chose the film that will prevail the most out of all in competition. Quentin says a zillion times that it had nothing to do with 'politics crap'. And one is left wondering , hm.

Exactly. Thank you mod, thank you cron.

I'm not gonna say QT is political. But take this into account: he's a safe, also very good at self-promotion, artist. Theory says to be soft and left leaning when in this industry. He walks by the strikers at Cannes (who everybody knows are there to grab glory, like a fucking second rate celebrity), and he raises his fist. What a fucking ham moment. Yeah, I'm sure when they cut one of his PA's salaries he's gonna take to the picket line. Also, he answers to your hated Miramax company, and its notoriously Democratic boss Harvey, who just happens to be the producer of Moore's movie. Oh my, what a strange connection. Without stressing any great conspiracy theory here, I think it's worth noting and considering.

I've seen some of Moore's films. I've read interviews by him. As I've said before, he's an awesome media manipulator. Is he an awesome filmmaker? Let's put all personal bias aside... now really, is he? Unless you are already totally on board with his Politics, have you been blown away by his sense of cinema? Morris and the Maysles brothers are TEN FUCKING TIMES more important. To cinema. To leftist Politics, Moore is the king of doc filmmakers right now. Why was I so angry, why did I say the Palme meant nothing to me now? Because in my naivette, I thought Cannes was the last place about the politics of cinema, not the cinema of Politics. Did I say F 9/11 was a shitty movie? No. No I didn't. But that didn't stop P from flaming out on me. When I responded to a few posts in the Passion thread, suddenly I was commenting on the movie without seeing it. One CAN make comments related to a film in a film discussion without seeing the film, seeing as the discussion had expanded to a wider range. But of course it's easier to sit on a pedastal, cloak all of your opinions with doublespeak and in-jokes, and freak out when anybody else ever puts anything on the line. Did I tell any of you to not see the movie? No. I put out a simple opinion. Oh, you're gonna change my mind? Who the hell do you think you are to try and change my mind about this? How do you know what I want to accomplish with cinema, and what I think is good for it? And do you think in one little post you're gonna radically alter my ever evolving artistic viewpoint on this career? No, you probably don't, you just want to make a petty, bullying comment.

On to this "I don't think politics should be in film" comment. Little "p" politics, if we take into account the idea of "politics", can be applied to anything, most definitely relationships between people and organizations, and so by that definition all films are political. So, yes, Taxi Driver and Conformist fit nicely. Big "P" politics, eg. this is who you should vote for in the next election -- those are just feature length commercials, or worse, propaganda. Do you guys like watching church-funded movies about how secularization is ruining America, and how atheist or agnostic leaders are idiots and evil men who need to be stopped? Well, guess what, it's the same fucking thing coming from the other side, but since you agree with that side you can't see the forest for the trees. If the KKK made a film about how Martin Luther King deserved to get shot, would you flock out and see it? No, it'd be hatred, racism, and propaganda. As someone said before, it's become this intense head-hunting for one man, and a tearing down of that man at every possible turn, in the name of a political cause. You ever heard of scape-goating? It's being used to great wonders right now. It's childish, and it's sad.

People are all talking about this great revival of Cannes this year. What? I liked it when Bowling For Columbine won a special prize. Here, you made some leftist propaganda and we love that shit, so we'll invent a special prize for you. But we're gonna reward some cinema with the real prizes. Last year, we had Dogville and Elephant. Some anti-Americanism creeping in, perhaps. Some questioning of societies? Most definitely. Broad questioning. Dogville may have sent up the American dream, but it didn't attack ONE SPECIFIC LEADER AS IF HE WAS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY PROBLEM IN YOUR FUCKED UP COUNTRY. Dogville wasn't about which Political party is evil and needs to be replaced, it was about human politics and their evil and self-serving nature. Little p, big P, little p, big P. Somebody out there disagrees, I'm sure. Someone will perhaps post a dictionary definition or something, and so on and so on. If we whittle everything down to a semantics assault, which I suppose is the path I may have led us on, we can deconstruct and rebuild anything we wish to suit our arguments. But you must be able to grasp the nature of what I am saying.

Which brings us to:

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: SoNowThenIt was a political move, and that's what disgusts me. It'll be nothing more than a footnote in cinema in the future.

1. Has Roger & Me become a "footnote"? Have other political movies become footnotes?

2. Do political movies in general disgust you? Does political movies winning awards disgust you?

3. Do political movies that you disagree with disgust you? Does political movies that you disagree with winning awards disgust you?

Quote from: SoNowThenSo everyone can be mad about my opinion. Whatever. Someone had to say something. Now let's go on for 7 pages about how I'm "wrong". Preach to the choir.

4. Do you really hope to have any meaningful discussion about this with that amount of cynical baggage?

JB, I've always found it is an interesting tactic to ask question with someone you argue with. Of course they must now formulate answers, which you can further question, thus throwing it into a state of confusion and making it look like you have some upper hand. So allow me to furnish you.

1. Yes.
2. Yes, if we are speaking of big P propaganda
3. Yes, of course. The very nature of the polemic dogma of these works does not allow you to appreciate them as art, but as an order: either you're with us or against us. I have to choose a side. This is a trend that flows through both popcorn commercial films with clear cut "good guys" and "bad guys", as well as these sidewinding diatribes.
4. No, no meaningful discussion will follow because you have hardcore ingrained ideological leanings, as do I, and no internet debate is gonna change that. Thus, preaching to the choir. And I never wanted to have a discussion anyway. I expressed my feeling on not caring if I ever won the Palme. It's you other guys that took such offense to this, and retorted.

I'm not stopping anyone from seeing this film. More power to you, and to Moore. And more power to me to opt out. I saw something that didn't sit right with, and I questioned it. Isn't that what you want people to do, JB? Question things? Or do you only want them to question things that you also question? Are you as one-sided as me? Would you admit that? Is it a bad thing anyway? Shall we have a question-throwing battle?

At least a few people took up the discussion of devil's advocate. Some good did come of all this.

the fact still remains that you spoke ill of a film festival, for giving its award to a film you have not seen. if you had seen the film, i really wouldn't have had any problem with what you said. the fact that you haven't seen it just makes your whole rant about it just as bad as saying that f 9-11 is going to be the savoir of all cinema.

So if I think something is up, something beyond integrity, I should not be allowed to have an initial opinion on it, I guess.


Also:

QuoteIt seems the only enemy that Michael Moore has at this year's Cannes film is fellow firebrand Jean-Luc Godard. Unimpressed by Moore's credentials as cinema's leading leftwing activist, the veteran new-waver yesterday belittled the director as merely "halfway intelligent" while asserting that President Bush is "less stupid than Moore thinks". Speaking at a press conference for his own movie, Our Music, Godard argued that films such as Fahrenheit 9/11 "help Bush more than harm him ... in a very vicious way that [directors like Moore] are not conscious of". When pressed, however, Godard admitted that he had yet to see Fahrenheit 9/11.

Looks like I'm in pretty good company.

C'mon guys, let's let this argument, which is at its root divisively political and therefore not solvable, diminish and get back to what's really important here: jumping on SoNowThen for Almodovar-related reasons!

Yeah!

See there, my reasons for staying away from Pedro right now are (as I admitted) thin at best. Lack of interest and time play a factor as well.

But when people post stuff like "his movies are so amazing, I'm in love with them, they're cinema at its finest", then I have to admit, I am moved that much closer to wanting to see them. When opinions are expressed out of simple love like that, one can't help but be moved.

But the Moore debates never spin to that, they're always our side vs yours, which is good for him because it creates controversy and momentary fame, but I see it as being a bad thing for cinema.

EDIT: See, look at it all from my point of view. You don't wanna make popcorn movies that are safe, and you want total creative control. Therefore, it takes you out of the commercial cinema crowd, which means taking you out of a large chunk of funding and support. But the places that are set-up for support and exhibition of alternatives (film festivals), it seems they cater to a certain bent, some prescribed ideals and beliefs, making all the harder for you to get in there in you don't make "social concern" films. I realize great things sneak in under both radars, it just seems that it's getting harder and harder to go the festival route unless you play up a certain angle, and I feel that takes away from so much other good stuff that can come from it all. It's set up a kind of paranoia that continues to get slowly validated, and means that yet another potential haven is untrustworthy.

michael moore is gay, u homophobe.

It's where cinema is a matter of life
Forget the glamour. The Cannes festival is at its best when it embraces film as art and art as passionately engaged with reality. Source: Los Angeles Times

The patron saint of film criticism, André Bazin, once compared film festivals to religious revivals — tent meetings where the faithful come to affirm their belief in cinema. That was the 1950s; this is now. These days, those who converge at the Festival de Cannes seldom exhibit the passion or the faith that made the golden age of art cinema such a heady time: They're agnostics rather than true believers.

At this year's Cannes, though, movie love flickered somewhat more brightly, more intensely than it has in recent memory. The selection may not have inspired the faithful to collectively prostrate themselves on the altar of cinema, but it did furnish reason for them to periodically jump to their feet and shout hallelujah. Generally regarded as a return to quality form after last year's competition — exemplified by Vincent Gallo's widely ridiculed "The Brown Bunny" — this year rehabilitated the festival's tarnished reputation and served as a forceful reminder that good movies don't always stand outside the larger culture but can be neck deep in it.

That engagement with the world is what makes Cannes exhilarating. The red carpet and its swanning stars give the festival glamour, but what gives it vigor, critical relevancy and an ever-present shiver of expectancy is its expansive sense of cinema as more than just a commodity or an evening's entertainment.

This is a festival that embraces film as an art and connects moviegoers with a medium that isn't in retreat from reality, as is too often the case with contemporary American movies, but passionately engaged with it. Here, you see films attuned to the rhythms of life (not just death), watch tenderly flawed people make love without a hint of plastic enhancement and worry about the same kinds of things the rest of us worry about — where to live, how to live, why to live.

Hype, but something else

Nothing made the case for an urgently engaged cinema better than Michael Moore's Palme d'Or winner, "Fahrenheit 9/11," which arrived at the festival amid a storm of brilliantly orchestrated hype. The day before Cannes opened, Wall Street Journal columnist Alan Murray — who apparently has learned nothing from Mel Gibson's canny manipulation of the media — railed against Moore's film sight unseen. Miramax's Harvey Weinstein, who as of my deadline was still shopping for a distributor, couldn't have hoped for better launch or a more expert partner in publicity. By the time "Fahrenheit 9/11" screened at the festival's midpoint, Moore had Cannes securely in pocket, having worked the American right, the French left (on the Croisette striking workers cheered him like a rock star) and an international media eager to embrace his patented anti-establishment shtick.

Certainly, there can be more to Moore than just shtick; for the first time since "Roger & Me," however, there is also more to one of his movies than noise and self-promotion. A biting and, at least on the basis of a single viewing, factually sound critique of George W. Bush's presidency in the wake of 9/11, the documentary offers little that's new by way of information; its triumph, rather, is that of synthesis and of storytelling. It's by no means a great film, but it's nonetheless important. Less because of what it says specifically about the past few years — Jon Stewart, among others, beats the same partisan drum almost every evening — but because it affirms the power of film to spur a larger, noncinematic dialogue. It affirms that movies make meaning beyond their grosses.

Some of the French media greeted the film's win of the highest prize at Cannes as a victory for anti-Bush sentiment, an attitude that, it's worth pointing out, rarely registers as anti-Americanism. Indeed, it's arguable that the reason Moore has won so many hearts and minds in France ("I love Michael Moore!" a Frenchman exclaimed to me unsolicited) is that he's the kind of American who allows the French to simultaneously indulge in their love and hate of the U.S. That love-hate dynamic — as well as this country's overwhelming influence on the rest of the world — is one of the great, unarticulated themes of international festivals. In film after film, country after country, America's influence dictates the clothes movie characters wear, the music they listen to, the movie posters they hang on their walls.

A convergence of chatter

One of the great pleasures of film festivals is that they place individual movies into a dialogue. "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Wong Kar-wai's hotly anticipated romance "2046" have little to say to each other, but one of the most beneficial ways to approach a festival like Cannes is as a series of interrelated discussions — a convergence of cinematic chatter. To judge by this year's roundup one of the most pressing concerns, especially in non-Western countries, is the new global economy and its discontents. Perhaps because artists tend to be liberal or on the Left, the films that broach globalization never register as anti-modern (or anti-Western) in the manner of radical Islamists. Instead, films such as the Cannes entry "Passages" — a Chinese feature about high school students desperately seeking a bright future — manage to be both modern in their emphasis on the individual and skeptical about a modernism dictated solely by money.

On another continent, the 81-year-old Senegalese director Ousmane Sembène — whose classic titles include "Black Girl" — offered an even sharper political critique with "Moolaadé," a stirring story of resistance. Although the plot hinges on the horrors of female genital mutilation, both for the girls subjected to the procedure and the women lucky enough to survive it, at its root Sembène's film is about the challenges of post-colonialism. In a tiny village, a woman who refused to have her daughter mutilated (or "cut") takes four girls under her protection, incurring the wrath of the men, who in the name of Islam use the ritual as a means of oppression. A model of political cinema, "Moolaadé" ends with the image of a mosque swallowed by thick apocalyptic smoke — a bracing image from the director, a longtime Marxist.

Sembène, resplendent in traditional white robes and holding an elegant pipe in his mouth, received a standing ovation at his first public screening at Cannes. The warm reception coupled with that of the press underscore the view by many critics that artistic director Thierry Frémaux blundered by not including "Moolaadé" in competition. Although Frémaux appeared a model of calm and gave Sembène a gracious welcome, he had his feet to the fire throughout the festival. Last year he came under attack for what many considered one of the poorest festivals in years. Given that festivals are generally only as good as the available movies and that even the most prestigious festival in the world cannot improve the state of the art, many of the criticisms often came across as at best naïve, at worst politically motivated.

That said, Frémaux did himself no favors this year with his decision to program two of the festival's best films — the Sembène and Jean-Luc Godard's "Notre Musique" ("Our Music") — out of competition. Like the Sembène, Godard's surprisingly mellow consideration of our violent age is nothing if not timely. In one of the film's most provocative scenes, a beautiful Israeli woman — who's committed suicide in the name of peace — gains entry into a stretch of paradise heavily guarded by American Marines. The idea that the American military stands between a peace-seeking Israeli and heaven on Earth found a touching if somewhat startling echo in a strong documentary by Arab-Jewish filmmaker Simone Bitton called "Wall," about the "separation" wall under construction in Israel that will divide the country from its Palestinian neighbors.

Godard, who granted interviews to only three journalists at Cannes, declined to answer even the most seemingly nonconfrontational questions relating to Israel. When asked if he had named one of his main characters — yet another Israeli woman — after the biblical Judith, who beheads Holofernes and delivers the Jews, he unconvincingly answered that the name held no meaning. Despite this, the most overtly political, famously contentious veteran of the French New Wave came across as surprisingly friendly (he smiles, he laughs!), often speaking in English except when embarking on the same anti-American harangue he trotted out in his last feature, "In Praise of Love." (Why, he wondered, do Americans call themselves Americans when our neighbors call themselves Ecuadoreans, Mexicans and the like.)

As ever, Godard continues to draw lines between past and future, on the political front and in terms of film aesthetics, but these days his work tends to stir little interest beyond the usual cinephile suspects. Like many filmmakers, he dabbles in digital video; unlike most, he doesn't use it as an inexpensive substitute for celluloid but as one color in his creative palette. In conversation, Godard had plenty to say about digital video (all negative), but his most trenchant comment comes in "Notre Musique" when a woman asks if he believes that "little digital cameras" will save cinema. By way of an answer, Godard just cuts to his unsmiling face obscured by shadow. If he'd shot it in digital video you wouldn't be able to see the shot, much less his contempt.

In the past decade, the number of films shot on digital video and screening at festivals has greatly increased. Third World directors, in particular, often work in digital video for the same reason American directors looking to catch a break at Sundance do — it's cheaper. Aesthetics rarely seem to play a significant part in the decision to shoot in video, though one of the medium's most ardent champions is Abbas Kiarostami. Considered one of world's leading auteurs, the Iranian director had two video-films at Cannes, "10 on Ten" and "Five." The first distills Kiarostami's reductive ideas about digital video (he deems it more truthful than film); the second is a lazy stab at the sort of avant-garde experimentation (non-narrative, fixed camera, long takes) that's been old hat since Andy Warhol ran the Factory.

The inclusion of these projects into the official Cannes selection may have thrilled Kiarostami completists, but it didn't put the festival in the most favorable light. One frequent criticism of Cannes several years ago is that it had become overly loyal to favorite auteurs, leading to the automatic inclusion of even mediocre work. Frémaux isn't immune to auteurs (as the two Kiarostami projects proved), but he's also moved on from some established, less overtly "sexy" art-cinema names (the new Mike Leigh film was rumored to have been turned down) while holding fast to art-cinema icons such as Wong Kar-wai and Spain's Pedro Almodóvar, whose work looks as good between the pages of French Vogue as it does in the Cannes catalog. Frémaux also appeared to be chasing other, more interesting agendas.

Asia welcomed

As the festival wore on it became increasingly clear that Frémaux was pushing Cannes out of its familiar Eurocentric classicism. He was redrawing the world-cinema map to include more Asian titles, many of which were also genre films — Zhang Yimou's "House of Flying Daggers" (a swordsman epic from China), Johnnie To's "Breaking News" (a Hong Kong policier) and Park Chan-wook's "Old Boy" (a South Korean revenge flick).

To judge by the noisy walkouts during its press premiere, Park's flashy "Old Boy" was one of the less-loved competition entries. For better or worse, the film marked the arrival of "extreme Asian cinema" — loosely speaking, the tag refers to violent genre movies — in the most hallowed of art-cinema temples. The film has its merits, but the idea that a mature work like Sembène's "Moolaadé" had been kept out of competition to make room for Park's giddily brutal production gave more than one critic pause. It also led some to speculate that the film was only in competition as a sop to jury president and extreme Asian cinema fan Quentin Tarantino. By the time "Bad Boy" won the Grand Prix, the second-highest award given at Cannes, those suspicions had ossified into received wisdom.

For those who prefer their aesthetic revelations delivered with more feeling and less carnage the Wong was a relief. As much a showman as Moore, Wong arrived late at Cannes; more important, so did his film. Some (mainly French) cynics speculated that the Hong Kong director intentionally missed his first press screening to prevent potentially negative word-of-mouth from leaking to buyers. At both his crowded press conference and a press luncheon Wong politely but firmly denied the charge. He was less forthcoming on the question of whether "2046" was actually finished. His eyes obscured by his trademark sunglasses, Wong indicated that shooting had finally come to an end after four on-and-off-again years. His star Tony Leung Chiu-wai looked visibly relieved. And was the editing done? "This," Wong said, a smile tugging at his mouth, "is the final edit in May."

This coy cat-and-mouse likely only stoked the cynical view that Wong engineered his Cannes arrival for maximum publicity. Maybe he had; he wouldn't be the first or the last filmmaker to exploit the festival. Even so, considering that Wong ranks among the world's most important film visionaries — his impact on the medium outstrips that of Almodóvar and may prove more lasting than that of Kiarostami — the complaint seems irrelevant, trivial. "2046" may indeed be unfinished, but this sumptuous, gauzy story about a man stuck in a past of his own foolish design, emerged as a highlight of the festival. Like the other Asian filmmakers, Wong traveled a long way to get Cannes. If he took his time getting there perhaps it was because he knew the festival needed him. It would wait — and it did.

Quote from: SoNowThenNo, no meaningful discussion will follow because you have hardcore ingrained ideological leanings, as do I, and no internet debate is gonna change that.

My opinions have changed before, and they will in the future. Why not yours? Your closed-minded defeatism is depressing.

Quote from: SoNowThenI saw something that didn't sit right with, and I questioned it. Isn't that what you want people to do, JB? Question things? Or do you only want them to question things that you also question? Are you as one-sided as me? Would you admit that? Is it a bad thing anyway? Shall we have a question-throwing battle?

Of course being one-sided and dogmatic is a bad thing. And of course I want you to question things. Question Michael Moore. Question me. I don't pretend to be objective, but I try to be truthful and open-minded.

Quote from: SoNowThenJB, I've always found it is an interesting tactic to ask question with someone you argue with. Of course they must now formulate answers, which you can further question, thus throwing it into a state of confusion and making it look like you have some upper hand. So allow me to furnish you.

I want to deconstruct your throught process and reveal your logic. What's wrong with that? I want to know why you think something or why you make a certain assumption. It's like vicarious introspection.

I'm not sure what this "state of confusion" is you're talking about. The world is a complicated place and shouldn't be oversimplified.

I don't think provocative statements should just sit there, unexamined. If there's a flaw in my logic, challenge me. If something I say is factually incorrect, correct me. And even if you fundamentally disagree with my philosophies or values, we can debate that too.

It's not your skepticism of Michael Moore that annoys me (I'm not sure where you got that from), it's your arrogant opening and closing of the debate, your thought-provoking statement followed by an immediate refusal to have a meaningful discussion about it. That's just obnoxious. And I wish you would be as open as you have been in the past.

Quote from: SoNowThen

QuoteGodard admitted that he had yet to see Fahrenheit 9/11.

Looks like I'm in pretty good company.

Just because Godard is being pretentious makes it okay?  :wink:

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanAnd I wish you would be as open as you have been in the past.

Once bitten, twice shy, as they say.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: SoNowThen

QuoteGodard admitted that he had yet to see Fahrenheit 9/11.

Looks like I'm in pretty good company.

Just because Godard is being pretentious makes it okay?  :wink:

Of course.