(AP photo)
by Tom Shales
“What I try to do is be consistent,” said President Barack Obama. He was talking about energy policy — not about debating strategies, because as all the world knows by now, Obama projected a far more aggressive and engaged persona at his second debate against Mitt Romney than he did at the first. He managed to do it without being self-conscious, a neat trick since the reviews of his previous performance were so unanimously negative.
• Chaz Ebert at Cannes
Dear Roger: “We were once indivisible from every atom in the cosmos,” and that is how I feel when I am sitting in the Palais watching movies at Cannes with a screen spread out as wide as the galaxy, the audience circling around like protons and neutrons breathing as one in empathy.
What we tried to do in this video was give an overall impression of Cannes–the films, the publicity, the crowds. This is the top convention city in France, and it’s strange to think of the Palais as hosting car dealers or financial experts, but it does. Especially on the weekends, the city is jammed by tourists who have no hope of getting into a screening, but just like to hang around and see the stars walking up the steps on the famous red carpet.
Photographed and edited by Scott Dummler. Assistant producer, Sonia Evans. The photographs are by Scott.
Beasts of the Southern Wild
• Chaz Ebert in Cannes
The Cannes 2012 Palme D’Or was indeed won Sunday by Michael Haneke for “Amour,” the best film in the festival. And what an emotional moment to see its two stars, Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuel Riva walk up on stage with Haneke to accept the award. A juror, Jean-Paul Gaultier said they gave the most emotionally real performances of any film in the festival. He said he bawled his eyes out. This was the second time in three years that Hakeke won the Palme, after “The White Ribbon” in 2009.
And surprisingly, three out of four of my award speculations also won prizes. However, if you listened carefully to the reasoning of the Jury you can conclude that actually all four of the lineup would have won.
Haneke, Riva, Trintignant
• Chaz Ebert at Cannes
Who will win the Palme D’Or? I expect top prizes for Michael Haneke for his film, “Amour,” with Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva, but I am terrible at the awards-guessing game. I think “Amour” is one of the very best films in the festival with its harrowing portrait of the mental and physical deterioration of an esteemed piano teacher after a series of strokes, and the husband who must bear witness to this as he takes cares of her.
Haneke’s film is so mature and well done that its emotional impact builds quietly, from the core. You marvel at how he layers the scenes of a marriage so naturally that you know the couple has been together for decades in a relationship that is comfortable and emotionally enriching. And so when they make their choices you are right there with them emotionally until the bitter end, and there is no judgment about the choices made.
Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford and George Lucas bring “Indiana Jones” to Cannes. (AP photo)
Dear Roger,
The weather gods smiled on Steven Spielberg and George Lucas for their world premiere of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.” Crowds gathered in the Riviera sun, some of them with signs pleading, “S’il vous plait, I NEED tickets for Indiana Jones!” There was a screening scheduled for 1 p.m., for both the press and the official invitation holders. In the past mixing the two has spelled disaster for a movie so highly anticipated; usually the screenings are separate, so the black tie crowd doesn’t hear the possible snickers of the critics. Today I expected a crowd, so I got to the Palais des Festivals much earlier than usual, but to no avail. The guards told me it was complet!
Director Laurent Cantet accepts the Palme d’Or, surrounded by his cast.
For the first time in 21 years, a French film has taken the top prize at the Cannes film festival, and in a rarity for Cannes, the Palme d’Or was awarded unanimously. The prize could have easily been named “The Golden Apple” rather than the The Golden Palm since it went to “The Class” (“Entre Les Murs”), the Laurent Cantet film about a young teacher who tries to reach his class of primarily immigrant children in a school on the outskirts of Paris. Confronted with their apathy and sometimes outright hostility, he questions them in a Socratic fashion until they begin to ask themselves if perhaps an education might be relevant to them. This film moved me to tears and so of course I thought that, in the grand tradition of Cannes, it had no chance of winning the top prize.
Mike Tyson in James Toback’s documentary.
CANNES, France — Roger, when we talked about sending you messages from the film festival I never expected that my first would be about a heavyweight boxer. Mike Tyson’s grip was surprisingly gentle when he shook my hand, and his voice soft and polite on stage, but there was nothing gentle, soft or polite about the images onscreen here in “Tyson,” James Toback’s documentary about his life. It is a compelling character study. His life is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions.
Kyle and Alison Eastwood with their father Clint on a big night out in Cannes.
Dear Roger,
I’ve just returned from the official dinner given by the Festival for Clint Eastwood’s movie. I felt like Cinderella at the ball. The dinner was held at the swanky Restaurant La Palme d’Or on the Croisette. I wore my long evening gown just like all the French women wear at night. That’s usually the last thing you want to do after watching movies all day, and most of the American women journalists skip the gowns, but I am a hybrid this year, not quite journalist and not quite guest. Besides, this was a special evening and I wanted to make a good showing for you.
Clint Eastwood and Angelina Jolie in Cannes.
Postcard #1
Her new movie struck close to home for Angelina Jolie, visiting Cannes in an advanced stage of pregnancy. “Changeling” is based on the true story of a Los Angeles mother whose son disappears in 1928. Months later a young boy found in DeKalb, Illinois is returned as her son by the LAPD, which needs good press at a time of corruption. Problem is, she insists it’s not her son, but the cops pressure her to raise the boy as her own. When she refuses, they have her held against her will. She and Brad Pitt were toasted by her director, Clint Eastwood, at a late-night dinner Tuesday at the beachfront Hotel Martinez, where Jolie said that being a mother “makes the film more personal, because I cannot imagine a mother not being trusted to know her own child.”
Red carpets, glitz, glamour, and path-breaking works in global cinema are what I expect out of the 2010 Cannes Film festival. With this being my very first time at the event my expectations are based on years of reading articles about the festival in magazines and newspapers.
It is surreal that I am a part of this event and am able to gather my own impressions of it. Two films that I am really interested in this year are “Another Year” by Mike Leigh and “Udaan” by Vikramaditya Motwane.
by Tom Shales
Consensuses form so quickly now — faster than frost on a window pane. The vice presidential debate had barely ended last night when agreement emerged from within the vast media morass that Joe Biden had forcefully redeemed the honor of the Obama Administration, Paul Ryan did all right by himself and running mate Mitt Romney, and Martha Raddatz of ABC News had done a much better job at moderating than puffy and pompous Jim Lehrer did at the presidential debate earlier this month.
(AP photo)
We can be very glad Barack Obama won his bid for re-election for reasons that have nothing to do with politics. Unlike Obama, his defeated opponent is, to put it gently, not a gifted public speaker. He actually has a warm and semi-mellifluous voice when speaking in a normal tone into a microphone; the best parts of his TV commercials were when he said he was Mitt Romney and he “approved this message. ” Up on stages and platforms, however, he displayed little talent for galvanizing a crowd, or even holding attention.
Rarely does a TV show arrive with lower expectations than the annual Emmy Awards telecast. It’s a given that the thing will suck. Even so, this year’s — the 64th — managed to come up short and disappoint. And it wasn’t one of those “so bad it’s good” campy things you can enjoy making fun of, either. It was more like one of those “so bad it’s lousy” things that leave you incredulous and drained of the will to live.
View image David Bordwell (who needs no introduction to readers of Scanners), Michael Barker of Sony Pictures Classics, and Werner Herzog discuss Herzog’s “Stroszek.”
“Stupidity is the devil. Look in the eye of a chicken and you’ll know. It’s the most horrifying, cannibalistic, and nightmarish creature in this world.”
— Werner Herzog
I could listen to Werner Herzog talk all night. And I have. (See this transcript from Ebertfest 2005, for example.) Watching the marvelous “Stroszek” (I think of it as Herzog’s Fassbinder movie), with Werner, as everyone calls him, seated in the audience two rows behind me, the famous dancing chicken at the end reminded of the quote above. (“Stroszek” has one of the great final lines in movies: “We have a 10-80 out here, a truck on fire, we have a man on the lift. We are unable to find the switch to turn the lift off and we can’t stop the dancing chicken. Send an electrician. We’re standing by…” Those of us who are not waiting for Godot are indeed waiting for the electrician, or someone like him…)
View image The vibe you get from this picture perfectly captures what Ebertfest feels like. Here, David Bordwell shows off his midnight-hour chocolate-banana shake at the Steak ‘n Shake (yes, there’s only one apostrophe in that). Somehow, when he began drinking it, he got the banana and the chocolate to stay separate on either side of the plastic straw, too. These are the things that make life worth living. (You see, the chocolate represents the movies and the banana represents the people and Roger is the glass and Chaz is the whipped cream and cherry on top and…)
Later I asked Herzog if he had changed his mind about chickens, dancing or otherwise. “I only like eating them,” he said. In response, I naturally quoted a great exchange from “Chinatown”:
Noah Cross (John Huston), peering at a fish on J.J. Gittes’s plate: I hope you don’t mind. I believe they should be served with the head.
J..J. Gittes (Jack Nicholson): As long as you don’t serve the chicken that way.
View image Writer Anna Thomas (“El Norte”) interviews Prof. Samba Gadjigo (director of “The Making of Moolade”), actress Fatoumata Coulibaly, and actress/activist Marcia McBroom-Small (“Beyond the Valley of the Dolls”) for “Moolade.”
I also asked Herzog if he’d seen Michael Winterbottom’s fantastic bio-comedy about the Manchester music scene, “24 Hour Party People” (perhaps second only to “The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada” among my favorite films of the new millennium — and the one I’ve enjoyed re-watching the most), in which the lead singer of Joy Division commits suicide with the last scene of “Stroszek” playing on television in the background. Herzog said he’d heard about it, but hadn’t seen the movie. Well, he has something to look forward to.
View image Filmmaker Eric Byler (“charlotte sometimes”) and actor Scott Wilson (“Come Early Morning”) — both Eberfest vets.
If you’d like to listen to part of the discussion between Herzog, David Bordwell and Michael Barker (a low-fi MP3 recording made on my Treo 680 — have I mentioned how much I love my Treo 680, the life-changing “TiVo” of handheld gadgets?), click here.
It was remarkable to see how the Angry Young Herzog I remember from the ’70s and ’80s (in Seattle and especially Telluride) has evolved into such a congenial elder statesman. As his friend Paul Cox (who cast Herzog to play the father in “Man of Flowers,” a film he described as being about “male loneliness”) lamented technology (Cox is irrationally terrified of computers and cell phones), and proclaimed the imminent end of mankind’s time on Earth, Herzog was more genial and philosophical. Yes, he said, it may be our turn to become extinct, like many species before us, but that’s no reason to be “gloomy” in the time we have left: “Let’s keep making films and treasuring friendships and drinking beers.”
(When Cox, who spoke of women almost as if they were another species — claiming they were “closer to the soil” in a way that made them sound almost bovine — said that he couldn’t think of any films about “female loneliness,” Kristin Thompson came up with three masterpieces off the top of her head: Krzysztof Kieslowski’s “Three Colors: Blue,” Chantal Akerman’s “Jeanne Dielman,” and Carl Theodor Dreyer’s “Gertrud.”)
OK, now a few more pictures from Ebertfest 2007, after the jump…
Jesus W. Bush.
Forget Christopher Hitchens on Iraq. The author of the “controversial” “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything” (9 weeks on the New York Times best-seller list, now at number 2 — but only among people who buy and read books) has misplaced his delusional faith in the Rumsfeld / Cheney / Bush version of Mess ‘o Potamia for too long. When he writes or speaks about the invasion and occupation of Iraq, he is as unintelligible as someone speaking in tongues. Which, essentially, he is.
But when it comes to god, Hitchens is not similarly faith-based. To decide not to profess faith in a personal god in America these days — when even militant Islamists acknowledge Muslims, Christians and Jews as “people of the book,” fellow believers in Abrahamic religion — is one of the few remaining Politically Correct taboos. Theistic concepts of god are everywhere: on our money, in our Pledge of Allegience, in White House pronouncements from our Televangelist-in-Chief… There are no self-identified atheists (“non-theists”) in Congress [correction: one, as of 2007: Rep. Pete Stark], and some state laws prohibit nonbelievers from running for public office — the “no religious test” provision of the constitution notwithstanding.
So, it’s rather surprising for a change to find a small breath of fresh air emanating from Hitchens, who is better known for his stale, flammable whiskey-drenched halitosis. Some of his anti-religious arguments are as irrational as his Rumsfeldian ones (and the religious beliefs he savages), but at least his atheistic provocations lack the overwhelming sense of self-justification that overburdens his ex post facto rationalizations about Iraq.
Responding to a Washington Post piece by Michael Gerson (What Athiests Can’t Answer”), Hitchens poses a challenge:
Here is my challenge. Let Gerson name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first — I have been asking it for some time — awaits a convincing reply. By what right, then, do the faithful assume this irritating mantle of righteousness? They have as much to apologize for as to explain.
Essentially conceding that philosophy and secularism do not condemn their adherents to lives of unbridled selfishness, and that (say) the Jewish people did not get all the way to Mount Sinai under the impression that murder and theft and perjury were okay, and also that we could not have evolved unless human solidarity was in some way innate, Gerson ends weakly by posing what is a rather moving problem.
“In a world without God,” he writes, “this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature — imprinted by evolution but designed for disappointment.” Again, he substitutes the wish for the thought. We very probably are, as he admits, not the designed objects of the Big Bang or of the process of natural selection. But this sober conclusion, objective as it is, is surely preferable to the delusion that we have been created diseased, by a capricious despot, and then abruptly commanded to be whole and well, on pain of terror and torture. That sick joke is one that we can cease to find impressive, that belongs in the infancy of our species, and gives a false picture of reality that we would do well to outgrow.
Which got me thinking: I can think of many, many religious movies (from silents like “Ben-Hur,” through the biblical epics of the 1950s, the Christian parables of Ingmar Bergman, up to “The Passion of the Christ” and “Dogma”). But can you think of some movies that are explicitly atheistic, that argue against belief not just in religious dogma but in theism itself? Even “Monty Python’s Life of Brian,” though a satire of religious history and religious thinking, specifically confirms (in a tongue-in-cheek way) the New Testament version of the birth of Jesus in the opening scene, when the three wise men withdraw their gift-balms from Brian’s manger and re-gift them to a child in glowing swaddling clothes nearby….
If you were programming an Atheist Film Festival, what titles would you include? I’m drawing a blank at this moment.
Michael Haneke, Austrian experimenteur.
UPDATED (03/15/08)
Selected interviews: From Adam Nayman’s interview/review with “Funny Games” director Michael Haneke in Toronto’s eyeweekly:
“I’m trying to impart in my films what mainstream movies work to take away,” explains Haneke in an exclusive interview. “Namely: reality. I’m making movies that are inconsumable. And I can only do that by portraying the suffering of the victim, rather than the enjoyment of the perpetrator.” […]
Haneke says that he had always conceived “Funny Games” as an assault on American films, and that the remake merely serves to place the action in its correct context. (It also creates severe cognitive dissonance; my eyes kept scanning the impeccable, palpably Euro-art-house compositions for subtitles.) Over the past decade, American genre flicks have only grown more sadistic.
“This makes my film even more up-to-date than it was before,” laughs Haneke. So what about the trailers, which make the film look like the very dreck it means to critique?
“If that kind of marketing brings in the audience that I want to reach, then that’s fine,” says Haneke. “The bigger the audience, the better… every filmmaker feels that way. The difference [between myself and other filmmakers] is that I am not willing to make any concessions within the films themselves.”
“Even to a writer who is being intentionally obscure or wild of tongue we can say, ‘Be obscure clearly! Be wild of tongue in a way we can understand!'”
— Strunk & White, “The Elements of Style” (musical adaptation by Nico Muhly)
I love it when artists known for their work in one medium show a passionate investment in another. Over the weekend I stumbled upon composer Nico Muhly’s blog. This is the guy who studied with John Corigliano and Christopher Rouse, made two albums of his own music (Speaks Volumes and Mothertongue), and has collaborated with Philip Glass, Björk, Antony and the Johnsons, Bonnie “Prince” Billy (aka Will Oldham, of “Old Joy” and “Wendy and Lucy”) and Grizzly Bear, among others. And he’s the composer of the scores for “Choking Man,” “Joshua” and “The Reader.” (The middle one is actually a pretty good movie.)
Matt Zoller Seitz’s “The House Next Door.”
I feel strongly that film, and film criticism, are two sides of the same coin, each essential to the experience of the other. Without both sides, the coin itself couldn’t exist in three-dimensional space (and certainly wouldn’t be worth anything!). If movies are just forgettable eye exercises, patterns of light and shadow and sound that have no artistic or psychological or cultural significance, then what is there to analyze or criticize? And if the unexamined life is not worth living, then I don’t see how the unexamined film is worth watching.
Last Saturday, I was supposed to have been on a panel called “Why Film Critics Matter” at the Port Townsend Film Festival in Washington State, organized by Kathleen Murphy. And I would have been, if it hadn’t been for a scheduling misunderstanding. As it turns out, I was still in Toronto. But I sent Kathleen some thoughts to share on the panel, and I’d like to share ’em with you, too. This e-mail was composed after a lunchtime conversation with one of my favorite movie bloggers, Girish Shambu, and what we talked about was still reverberating in my head, so I want to thank him for his substantial contributions to this train of thought:
* * *
It’s Friday, I’m still at the Toronto Film Festival which winds up this weekend, and I just got back from lunch with Girish Shambu, a movie blogger based in Buffalo, NY. I’d never met Girish before — I’ve known him only through his blog, and the community of bloggers who contribute to critical discussions of movies on one another’s sites (including my Scanners blog) — and I’ve never been more excited about the future of film criticism than I am at this moment.
First, let me explain what I mean by “film criticism.” In traditional, mainstream print media (mostly newspapers and magazines), it is usually thought of as reviewing. Newspapers run their critics’ reviews of movies that are entering theatrical release in their local market. This is the most common, and narrowest, definition of what “film criticism” can be — part consumer guide (a recommendation on a binary or sliding scale from positive to negative), part reportage (what the story’s about, who’s in it, who directed it), and, if you’re lucky, part film appreciation (how the movie functions as an assemblage of images and sounds).
In 1959 Jean-Luc Godard famously proclaimed that tracking shots are a matter of morality — an inversion of fellow Cahier du cinéma critic Luc Moullet’s formulation that “morality is a matter of tracking shots” (“morale set affaire de travellings,” sometimes translated as “morality is in the tracking shots”). The evangelical theorists behind what became known as the French New Wave had a tendency to ascribe moral values to cinematic style and technique.¹ André Bazin and the late Eric Rohmer, especially, championed the moral as well as aesthetic superiority of mise en scène over montage, of Hawksian “invisible cutting” over dictatorial Eisensteinian editing, and of deep-focus over a more selective, shallow depth-of-field. Bazin praised directors such as Orson Welles and William Wyler (in collaboration with cinematographer Gregg Toland) for staging shots so that “the viewer is at least given the opportunity to edit the scene himself, to select the aspects of it to which he will attend.”
As David Bordwell summarized:
Their “deep-focus” style, he claimed, produced a more profound realism than had been seen before because they respected the integrity of physical space and time. According to Bazin, traditional cutting breaks the world into bits, a series of close-ups and long shots. But Welles and Wyler give us the world as a seamless whole. The scene unfolds in all its actual duration and depth. Moreover, their style captured the way we see the world; given deep compositions, we must choose what to look at, foreground or background, just as we must choose in reality. […]
[Bazin wrote that deep-focus] “forces the spectator to participate in the meaning of the film by distinguishing the implicit relations” and creates “a psychological realism which brings the spectator back to the real conditions of perception.”
