CANNES, France - Gus Van Sant's film "Elephant," about a high school shooting in America, won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival on Sunday.
The director cast real high school students, not professional actors, to star in the film, and asked them to improvise their lines. The movie starts out showing an ordinary day at school that turns to tragedy when two students go on a shooting spree in the hallways.
Van Sant, best known for "Good Will Hunting," also won the prize for best director.
"Uzak," (Distant) a Turkish film about a jobless man from the countryside who irritates his sophisticated city cousin by moving into his apartment, won the Grand Prize, or second place.
The film's two stars, Muzaffer Ozdemir and Mehmet Emin Toprak, shared the award for best actor. They played the two cousins - both lonely and alienated but unable to become friends.
Toprak died in a car crash shortly after learning that the film was selected to show in Cannes; Ozdemir is an architect by profession, not an actor.
The screenwriting prize went to Denys Arcand for "The Barbarian Invasions." He also directed the French-Canadian film about a man who confronts death with humor and sharp intelligence. The movie seemed to touch the most hearts in Cannes and had many viewers wiping away tears.
Marie-Josee Croze, who plays a young drug addict recruited to supply the dying man with heroin to ease his pain, won the award for best actress.
The jury prize went to "At Five in the Afternoon," by 23-year-old Samira Makhmalbaf of Iran. The movie - her third to show in Cannes - is about a spirited young Afghan who dreams of being her country's first woman president.
"Reconstruction," by Denmark's Christoffer Boe, won the Camera d'Or, an award for the best film by a first-time director.
The prize for best short film went to Australia's Glendyn Ivin for "Cracker Bag," about a girl who saves her pocket change to buy firecrackers
I'm excited...but also discouraged that Dogville didn't get anything. Maybe it's not as good as I was expecting.
I wonder about Dogville now. It seems of all films that were depedent upon Cannes success to be successful elsewhere, it was Dogville. Lars Von Trier feels like Cannes poster boy of today who is always destined to be in the shadow of Ingmar Bergman. I really don't have high expectations though from the film and feel much of the praise came from overt Von Trier enthusiasts the way Ebert spoke about the film. I didn't care much for Von Trier's last two films because I thought the domge esque to them wasn't even necessary for their simple stories because the shaky camera work only brought upon headaches. City of God is the master film on how to use handheld shots and that is always during distress and drama while keeping the camera still during casual moments. Von Trier's films act as though they are always in distress but are nowhere near it. They are steady quiet films for the most part reminiscient of the simplicity of Italian Neo Realism.
I'll catch Elephant when I can but I don't expect much either because even that seemed like a dissapointing choice for winning the Palme D'Or. At best, I heard people liking it. The movie though I am excited for the most and will catch when it comes out is Clint Eastwood's Mystic River.
~rougerum
I'll bet Lars is PISSED.
Dogville is already set for distribution, though, from Lion's Gate, so at least we don't have to worry about not getting the chance to see it. Which is something I'm worried about in the case of The Brown Bunny, which I still want to see even though I'm pretty sure I know exactly what it will be like (i.e. bad).
After seeing Gerry (so far my pick for best film of '03), I now am excited about anything Van Sant does that is outside the realm of Good Will Hunting crap. I think 'Elephant' sounds great.
I didn't know much about Mystic River until I read Ebert's column today. It sounds awesome...sort of in 'The Pledge' territory. Can't wait.
Les Invasions Barbares (The Barbarian Invasions) would probably have won the Palme if it had been more technically sophisticated according to the jury. Conseder it had a 3.7M$US budget (which is VERY big in Quebec :oops:) when you see it, you'll be blown away with what he could do.
Also, bear in mind this movie is a SEQUEL to La chute de l'empire Américain (The Fall of the American Empire), so to quebecers the characters are already known, so it implies they have been less described in the movie.
Quote from: Ghostboy
After seeing Gerry (so far my pick for best film of '03), I now am excited about anything Van Sant does that is outside the realm of Good Will Hunting crap.
Even a second Psycho remake thing?
Quote from: poserQuote from: Ghostboy
After seeing Gerry (so far my pick for best film of '03), I now am excited about anything Van Sant does that is outside the realm of Good Will Hunting crap.
Even a second Psycho remake thing?
Touché !
I thought the Psycho remake was pretty lame, but I was never opposed to it. While I wouldn't be excited at all if he chose to do that punk rock version, I would be interested in seeing it.
I can't wait for the Arcand (in my opinion, his Decline of the American Empire may just be the best Canadian film ever) and Dogville. Not yet having seen Gerry (it is a priority), I think the last good Gus van Sant film was To Die For, which is my personal favorite of all of his, despite its violation of his auteur status. I don't have tremendously high expectations of Elephant, but I'm willing to bet it's better than Finding Forrester, which was more of a letdown to me than Neil Labute doing Nurse Betty (though Labute than outdid van Sant for traitorous crapppiness with the astonoshingly, thoroughly bad Possession).
This year's cannes sucked imo.
Elephant just isn't exciting me as much as Gerry did and still does (still haven't seen it). I look forward to it a little more now I guess with it winning the Golden Palm and all...but still not that much. I doubt it'll ever excite me as much as Gerry which I still can't wait to see. I do like Van Sant too...if I haven't already said that in the past. Drugstore Cowboy is one of my fucking FAVORITE films...I would give anything for him to go back to making that kind of film. Or else start making films like Gerry. I also even like Good Will Hunting...it's not my favorite but it's kinda nice. I definitely have to be in a certain mood but I do kinda like it.
And as for Dogville - I don't think I like Von Trier. I finally watched Dancer in the Dark recently and I really can't say I liked it. It wasn't boring like the majority of people that disliked it said it was. I just hate the camerawork and the digital format and all that. I mean, I use digital but that's only for now...I'll never use it in the future when I am REALLY making films (like post-college). I actually really hate digital, it depresses me immensly that it's really going to be big. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every film absolutely has to be beautiful but there's a point where it can come to annoy me...just how lazy people will let filmmaker's be with how much time they spend on their cinematography and how their films look. And then the CONSTANT handheld...it just seemed like Von Trier didn't give a fuck about the audience. Like, going back to Gerry...that's more beautiful than I would ever expect a film to be. DITD is on the complete opposite...very ugly film. I also never really did like Bjork so...that made it extra hard to enjoy the film. Really the only good part was Catherine Deneuve who I really like.
The Brown Bunny does sound pretty bad as much as I don't want it to. I want to get excited about it just because of Buffalo 66...as good as that is. Or I at least want to have that unsure, weird excitement like I did way back with PDL when it was at cannes...when I was just getting into PTA. I just can't though...it just doesn't sound very good.
I haven't seen any post-Dogma Von Trier, but for those who wonder why he's labelled as such a great filmmaker, you should see The Element Of Crime. Just a good old creepy post-apocalyptic detective movie. But as for this hand-held digital shit, fuck... I can do that in my apartment. How good can it possibly be?
Quote from: ebeaman
And as for Dogville - I don't think I like Von Trier. I finally watched Dancer in the Dark recently and I really can't say I liked it. It wasn't boring like the majority of people that disliked it said it was. I just hate the camerawork and the digital format and all that. I mean, I use digital but that's only for now...I'll never use it in the future when I am REALLY making films (like post-college). I actually really hate digital, it depresses me immensly that it's really going to be big. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every film absolutely has to be beautiful but there's a point where it can come to annoy me...just how lazy people will let filmmaker's be with how much time they spend on their cinematography and how their films look. And then the CONSTANT handheld...it just seemed like Von Trier didn't give a fuck about the audience. Like, going back to Gerry...that's more beautiful than I would ever expect a film to be. DITD is on the complete opposite...very ugly film. I also never really did like Bjork so...that made it extra hard to enjoy the film. Really the only good part was Catherine Deneuve who I really like.
I have to disagree with you here. The whole point of the dogme movement was to make raw, realistic films. If it weren't for the use of natural lighting, handheld cameras, etc. the film wouldn't have seemed as real and, at least for me, it wouldn't have been nearly as emotional. The movie is supposed to be ugly, as it reflects the despair of its subject. I think of DITD as a very sad film and I don't think that it would have acheived that level in heightened emotion if it weren't for its realism.
Funnily enough, I find underlit/dirty/handheld films to be the LEAST "realistic" of all movies. It takes a really sure hand to light a film to make it look like reality, but given the nature of film (and especially video) you usually need lots of lights. This is my preference, anyway. I don't mean the high key lighting typical of comedies or romances or whatever, but the masters like Hall and Spinotti always have a way of getting their own look, but at the same time achieving what I like to call a powerful hightened reality.
it looks realistic because it looks like shitty homemade crap. same thing with it being handheld: its not that its handheld that makes it "realistic" (we ourselves see things more from a steady-cam POV) its that documentaries and the news are handheld, therfore we associate handheld with something that is really happening or happened
Yup, exactly. That's most people's definition of realistic look. But what I feel should be called "realistic" is to replicate what our eyes can see. And most times you need to add a fill light, otherwise the lighting contrast is too much for the media (film or vid) to handle, and it ends up being way too dark in spots, too light in others. That's why I say natural lighting is hard to make look realistic. I've tried with every short I've done, and have finally admitted that I need a DP to light like crazy for me.
Quote from: SoNowThenYup, exactly. That's most people's definition of realistic look. But what I feel should be called "realistic" is to replicate what our eyes can see. And most times you need to add a fill light, otherwise the lighting contrast is too much for the media (film or vid) to handle, and it ends up being way too dark in spots, too light in others. That's why I say natural lighting is hard to make look realistic. I've tried with every short I've done, and have finally admitted that I need a DP to light like crazy for me.
I don't necessarily think of it as "realistic," but it has its own sort of beauty, in my opinion. I think the "Favorite Things" bit in
Dancer in the Dark is really beautiful.
Handheld is not a panacea, and I think that the Dogme movement shouldn't have treated it as such. They should've acknowledged that it's not morally superior; it's certainly not right for every sort of film. But for those who think this shooting style can't sometimes be exactly the right thing and beautiful to boot, three words:
Husbands and Wives.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I love hand-held. When used properly (ie. our fav new wave french director). But it's become WAAAAAYYYYYYY overused as a "look it's documentary realism" tool.
Quote from: SoNowThenFunnily enough, I find underlit/dirty/handheld films to be the LEAST "realistic" of all movies. It takes a really sure hand to light a film to make it look like reality.
Yeah man, it's like...when I look through my eyes it doesn't look all ugly and shaky like DITD. It looks clear, not grainy. Even when I'm convulsing in dark places it doesn't look as shaky and dark as DITD.
Films like DITD are the most unrealistic-LOOKING films can look imo. Completely disregarding the subject matter I mean.
So I'm going to I have to go w/ SoNowThen with this whole thing. Handheld can be fucking great...dogme is a little much for me...I think it's an insult to cinema and really lazy filmmaking...that even I could do (and kinda have done). <why kinda? - I do use props and costumes.
Film = the best format
at this point in time
Quote from: SoNowThenOh, don't get me wrong, I love hand-held. When used properly (ie. our fav new wave french director). But it's become WAAAAAYYYYYYY overused as a "look it's documentary realism" tool.
soderbergh is da man with handheld shit. re- traffic.
Quote from: ebeamanI think it's an insult to cinema and really lazy filmmaking...that even I could do (and kinda have done).
Insult to cinema? Yikes. Before you call it lazy, you should check out the behind the scenes doc on the DVD. You may not like the result, but 100 camera setups are pretty far from lazy.
Quote from: ebeamanI don't think I like Von Trier. I finally watched Dancer in the Dark recently and I really can't say I liked it. It wasn't boring like the majority of people that disliked it said it was. I just hate the camerawork and the digital format and all that . . . And then the CONSTANT handheld...it just seemed like Von Trier didn't give a fuck about the audience.
Dancer in the Dark has to be one of my favorite movies... try it again... if you can get past the digital/handheld thing, it's really great. I wouldn't want it any other way.
The shaky camera lended itself very well to Dancer In The Dark because it became a subjective part of the characters. One instance was when Bjork sat down with the new defense attorney, and the moment he mentioned she'd have to pay for his services, the camera began to go to him, and the moment he said it, it STOPS. It was like a double back. Brilliant, and excusable because the rest of the movie created a precedent for it. There are many other instances where the handheld motion aids in the emotional scales of the characters.
Ebeaman seems to have a problem with harsh films... movies that kind of wake you up.
He likes to be caught in the fantasy of film, which is fine... (you can call DV unrealistic, but film is just a glorification of the way reality looks... a painting... DV is closer and more realistic because it says "this isn't bullshit, we've got it right here on video, mother fucker! Now watch this shit like it's your family")
Dancer in the Dark is great and I personally really like Breaking the Waves as well (though not as much as DITD). Not all films should be done like this, but calling DITD and BTW lazy is just ignorance... the raw emotion that bleeds from these movies is proof enough for me that some hard fucking work went into them.
Well, perhaps "realistic" was the wrong word, as I think "raw" is perhaps a better one. Another thing von Trier does to enhance the emotional scenes is to have the contrast between the highly saturated colors of the musical sequences and the bleakness (or "ugliness" as you call it) of the other scenes. The dreariness, and even the grainy look of the film add to its roughness, and I think this adds to the emotion. I have to say I can't believe you look at this as lazy filmmaking. Like JB said, a lot of work went into this film.
You know what, I'll stand up and second the call that both Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves are very lazy films. The technical achievement of having a hundred cameras for a given scene is impressive technically only, but not very important. I'll take up the french director Patrice Leconte and say the argument is that all that does is try to mask lack of vision on what you want to shoot. Thing is, storywise, both films are rather typical simplistic dramas and the identification of this dogme importance says that these films capture "realism". What is realism in movies? Sam Fuller described it as bullshit and gave the example that the only way you could make a war film realistic is by having people shooting at the audience every now and then during the movie. Movies exist outside this realism and when trying to go for realism, it better captures its own realism though other forms of realism like heightened or mellowed realism. Thing is, both movies are no more bleak or striking than a film like Leaving Las Vegas and that was made with purpose and imagination in finding the moments when to show documentary footage and when to use the film and let the color of Las Vegas bleed onto the characters and other such examples. Point being, purpose and passion was in the filmmaking, editing and drive of the film in how it wanted its subject being. Von Trier's dogme esque efforts in question just begin with the idea if you remove all things associated with higher production movies and have a 100 dv cameras everywhere for each given scene, you can capture the realism in any given story. This is nonsense and both movies are a run throw of this procedure and of no understanding in how to being able to better each movement of the films to utilize the strength of the story the best. Some movements may utlize aspects of dogme, some not, but it just isn't a simple flood over for everything in a simple story. That's just insane. Thinking of this, lazy is really a nice word for these films.
~rougerum
Changing the topic a little bit:
'Les Invasions Barbares' was an amazing film. One thing that bothered me about the editing, however: At the end of every major sequence, they would fade to black. That kinda threw me off and sort of messed up the pacing a little bit, I think. They should have saved the fades for, say, the end of every act. Or when there's a large passing of time. Other then that, an amazing film. I'm pretty much desensitized to everything nowadays, but that one really shook me up.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetYou know what, I'll stand up and second the call that both Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves are very lazy films. The technical achievement of having a hundred cameras for a given scene is impressive technically only, but not very important. I'll take up the french director Patrice Leconte and say the argument is that all that does is try to mask lack of vision on what you want to shoot. Thing is, storywise, both films are rather typical simplistic dramas and the identification of this dogme importance says that these films capture "realism". What is realism in movies? Sam Fuller described it as bullshit and gave the example that the only way you could make a war film realistic is by having people shooting at the audience every now and then during the movie. Movies exist outside this realism and when trying to go for realism, it better captures its own realism though other forms of realism like heightened or mellowed realism. Thing is, both movies are no more bleak or striking than a film like Leaving Las Vegas and that was made with purpose and imagination in finding the moments when to show documentary footage and when to use the film and let the color of Las Vegas bleed onto the characters and other such examples. Point being, purpose and passion was in the filmmaking, editing and drive of the film in how it wanted its subject being. Von Trier's dogme esque efforts in question just begin with the idea if you remove all things associated with higher production movies and have a 100 dv cameras everywhere for each given scene, you can capture the realism in any given story. This is nonsense and both movies are a run throw of this procedure and of no understanding in how to being able to better each movement of the films to utilize the strength of the story the best. Some movements may utlize aspects of dogme, some not, but it just isn't a simple flood over for everything in a simple story. That's just insane. Thinking of this, lazy is really a nice word for these films.
~rougerum
just cos u write more lines about sumthing doesn't mean u put more thought into it.
RK put it succinctly. and how do u, GT, suggest one properly capture "reality" or "realism" on camera, in film, in cinema? i opine that it's in the emotion of the story and the charecterization, the ideas and the clarity of communication with the audience. in this regard i place Breaking the Waves as one of the realest films ever made, there was more going on there than an occasionally shaky camera. but that's all u seem to focus on. i personally don't throw up everytime i get in a car.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetMovies exist outside this realism and when trying to go for realism, it better captures its own realism though other forms of realism like heightened or mellowed realism.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myecities.com%2Fconfused.jpg&hash=c0f8245b7dd25e3b0de73caa370e48260a8f59ad)
:lol:
Although I actually agree with what GT has to say. I wouldn't say Dogme films are "lazy", just that the realism they hope to capture through their techniques will never work the way they intend it to.
Quote from: godardianA. I think the last good Gus van Sant film was To Die For, which is my personal favorite of all of his, despite its violation of his auteur status.
B. ...the astonoshingly, thoroughly bad Possession).
A. What, because Buck Henry wrote it? I think it still retains a strong Van Sant signature....
B. OK movie at best.
Buck Henry = great fucking writer.
P, Again, you lack reason for what I say and how my long writing is bad for everyone (especially considering you and others read it) or implies I think I am smarter than anyone else. But for what reasons you did in going against me, I don't think you really are arguing for these movies because I agree with you in every aspect that realism comes out of the story and such and how it can effectively communicate with the audience. This is my point and my argument is that dogme doesn't really set its discipline in filmmaking to best utilize its story. First off, the stories aren't that far removed from typical dramas anyways. Breaking the Waves follows a unique story but throws in the towel at the end with its ending that can be seen in Hollywood land anytime because it serves to make us feel completely good only. Dancer in the Dark mixes a brutal story with the most artificial of genres, the musical and the approach to shooting the musical as raw really captures very little. Dogme thinks these stories are unique and are deserving of this format but they are not. Simple stories that can be more effective when told just simply. Perfect match but the films act as low budget actions films always filled with stress and action and drama when it is not even near the case.
I don't believe full on realism can be attained in the movies. Only various things that resemble realism but still highly artificial can be obtained. Each movie is different for what it requires to best utilize its story.
~rougerum
JB, Yep, bad writing to blame again, but here is a better (I hope) translated version of what I wanted to say for that portion:
Full realism, like the life of a day for any of us, can never be realized in cinema. Cinema does though have its own realism and that realism seems like a realism in responce to a highly cliche or standard story that comes closer to making the story more real or interesting. Instead of movies trying to go for real life interesting, they should go for the more interesting reality that only movies can bring.
~rougerum
Quote from: children with angelsAlthough I actually agree with what GT has to say. I wouldn't say Dogme films are "lazy", just that the realism they hope to capture through their techniques will never work the way they intend it to.
and its that irony that makes it interesting. (or maybe the irony was their intention)
Quote from: MeshQuote from: godardianA. I think the last good Gus van Sant film was To Die For, which is my personal favorite of all of his, despite its violation of his auteur status.
B. ...the astonoshingly, thoroughly bad Possession).
A. What, because Buck Henry wrote it? I think it still retains a strong Van Sant signature....
B. OK movie at best.
Yeah, but he didn't
write it... but you're right. It's really just a technical violation of the dictionary definition, because it does feel like a van Sant film, much more so than the subsequent handful...
I'm not sure what is meant by B. That you find
Possession okay at best? I appreciated the through-the-rainy-window bit with the composition and camera, but it was just so damn conventional and so very corny, especially coming from Neil Labute. I proudly brandish my expectations that a LaBute film be sharp. And I found that
Shape of Things only half made up for it.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetJB, Yep, bad writing to blame again, but here is a better (I hope) translated version of what I wanted to say for that portion:
Full realism, like the life of a day for any of us, can never be realized in cinema. Cinema does though have its own realism and that realism seems like a realism in responce to a highly cliche or standard story that comes closer to making the story more real or interesting. Instead of movies trying to go for real life interesting, they should go for the more interesting reality that only movies can bring.
~rougerum
Point taken, and I agree with you... but I don't at all think of Dancer in the Dark as a movie that tries to simulate reality. I mean.. it's a musical drama/tragedy. It really is a surreal movie.