Cannes you feel it?

These days things, as they say, are tough all over. Particularly in the media world. And the Cannes Film Festival is, and ever shall be, one of the most expensive gigs in all of journalism, even if you do it on the cheap. So I'm pretty damn fortunate (and grateful) to be going this year. But last week, just as I was finalizing plans, Todd McCarthy of Variety filed a disquieting article headlined "Few U.S. Pics Set For Cannes Festival." It looked as if, aside from a big red carpet premiere for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Crack Pipe, I mean, Skull, which apparently is gonna have its worldwide preem 20 minutes after the Cannes event, the only big U.S. movies on the Croisette were gonna be Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut and...Kung Fu Panda. No Soderbergh Che epic. No new Woody Allen mit de lesbian love scene between Scarlett Johannsen and Penelope Cruz. This gave me paws. New films from the Dardennes and Jia Zhangke and Phillippe Garrel are all well and good—hell, who am I kidding, they're BETTER than all well and good, they're what I live for—but I believe there is also some expectation that I bring home a little Hollywood glitz. And the lineup McCarthy posited wasn't gonna quite cut it in that department.

But, you know, one night you go to bed, and you wake up the next morning, and what do you find? Yes, you find that Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary by at least 10 points and that Jeffrey Wells is now on suicide watch. No, I mean, what else do you find? Why, you find the official announcement of the Cannes lineup, and you find that yes—YES!—it does include Soderbergh's two-part Che epic, here in one four-hour-part entitled Che (just like the Fleischer film, only without the exclamation point)! And that Woody Allen's Vicky Cristina Barcelona will be playing out of competition...and if there's anything that can compel me to sit through yet another Woody Allen "serious" film, it's the promise of...well, I'm not gonna mention it again, it's too undignified. And that Clint Eastwood's latest, Changeling, starring Angelina Jolie, is in and it is in the competition. That makes only two U.S. films in competition—the other being the aforementioned Charlie Kaufman directorial debut, which of course you know I'm dying to see. But still...

Also outside of competition are a new Abel Ferrera...the first film from Jennifer Lynch since the infamous Boxing Helena...a new Kelly Reichardt...James Toback's doc on Mike Tyson (I gotta get me an invite to that party)...a lot of stuff that, most importantly, promises a certain amount of intrigue. How interesting, for instance, if Roman Polanski, who ostentatiously bagged on the Chacun son Cinema press conference last year (I recently heard an account of this, from someone very close to the event, that differs a bit from the he-thought-the-questions-were-stupid line), showed up for the screening of the not-unsympathetic documentary on him, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired? I now feel secure that the much-desired Hollywood glitz will be there, and exportable.

Speaking of things being tough all over, the presence of Imagine/Universal's Changeling must come as something of a relief to Paramount, the studio behind Kung-Fu Panda. It seems a certain voice talent in the Panda, after saying no to every Stateside interview request pegged to the film, generously offered to do international press for Panda in Cannes...and could the studio fly her and her increasingly large family over there, please? Never mind that the international versions of the film are all going to be dubbed and hence her voice won't be heard in them anyway...With Changeling in, maybe they can go halvsies with Universal...

Comments

[Brian]

Huh-- it took me a minute to realize that was the Che film in the picture you posted. Maybe it's just the lack of coffee in my system at the moment, but I thought it was a still from the Ben Stiller ROLLING THUNDER film (which, come to think of it, should also be playing at Cannes).

[Billy Whizz]

Four hours of watching Benecio del Toro stroke his goatee and mumble through an avocado green filter: No thanks.

Another Clint Eastwood hack job (!cough! Million Dollar Baby !cough! Flags of our Fathers !cough! Mystic River !cough!) held up and praised for it's "lean and economical" shooting style offsest by indulgent star histrionics: No thanks.

Charlie Kaufman trying to his hardest to convice everyone that he's not a glorified sitcom writer because he has the ability to literalize surreal concepts (unlike Lynch, who doesn't have to literalize anything) No thanks.

All I can say is Thank God for the rest of the world. Maybe this is the year that Martel is feted for being the world class filmmaker she is, someone with more eschews more balls and cinematic genius in ten minutes of any one of her films that in the entire oeuvre of Bronco Billy.

[Glenn Kenny]

Martel's a hack.

Kidding. Martel's brilliant, and I can't wait to see her picture. But I doubt she needs a case made for her via pissing over Clint Eastwood, or whoever.

[Mike De Luca]

Billy Whizz, you have revealed only that you know nothing. "Flags of the Fathers"/"Letters from Iwo Jima" was, if anything, the great directorial achievment of 2006, proving that Clint Eastwood is not only a cinematic icon, but also one of our greatest living filmmakers. "Che" does look exciting. Soderbergh and Del Toro's portrayal will be anything but simplistic, even if it is does not contain the absurd spectacle of Jack Palance as Castro. And Mr. Whizz, urine, or whatever your name is, if Kaufman's meta-hijinks cannot make you laugh, then you are beyond hope.

[Dan]

I hate to be in agreement with somebody who has no class, but I do have to admit I'm not in the audience for a biopic of Che, partially because of the subject matter (can we PLEASE stop glorifying the mass murderer?) and partially because, well, Soderbergh's directing it. I used to like his work and increasingly I find myself wishing he'd have a huge failure so he'd go back to making movies like "Schizopolis".

[Glenn Kenny]

Well, Dan, we don't know that Soderbergh's Che treatment is necessarily gonna be a hagiography. My understanding is that this is in fact a personal project of a kind, so I'm interested to see what he's bringing to it.

[bill]

I'm with Dan if his fears -- which I share -- are confirmed, but you're right, Glenn, we don't know what Soderbergh's doing. But I heard a rumor (and it's only a rumor, as far as I know) that he said somewhere that he was specifically avoiding the more, let's say, murderous aspects of Che's personality. Anyone hear anything similar?

[Ryland Walker Knight]

Isn't this the project that started with a Terrence Malick screenplay? That's got to count for something, even if they've abandoned it for more impromptu, improvisational (erm, guerilla?) filmmaking (I remember some blog hosting pix of Del Toro and SS outside the UN w/o much crew...).

[Dan]

Well, you've got a point, I should reserve judgement until we get a better idea of the tack Soderbergh is taking. Poking around on Wikipedia reveals nothing about any gloss over the events, although depressingly it does reveal Soderbergh using the term "zeitgeist movie" with a straight face. I'll be curious to see how the RED ONE camera does in production, though.

[Glenn Kenny]

RWK, the project was supposed to be directed by Malick, with Soderbergh producing if I recall correctly. The screenplay here is by one Peter Buchman, whose other credits include "Eregon" and "Jurassic Park II."

I only hope the film depicts Che's legendary post-revolution victory speech, in which he proclaimed, "All children under the age of sixteen years old... are now sixTEEN years old!" I'll be happy then...

[bill]

Nothing against Soderbergh, who I generally like, but I would have much preferred a Malick film about Guevara.

[Ryland Walker Knight]

Are you saying there will be dragons in this version? If so...

[Mike De Luca]

"Che's Dragon"?

[don lewis]

Jesus people...I was just getting ready to go off on this type of pre-judgement of films on another blog but heald off. Now I see youse people...

You have NO CLUE what the Soderberg/Che films will be like. How can you *possibly* judge a film that's not even out?? How can you consider yourself a fan of cinema if you're willing to totally dismiss a new Soderberg film based on the main character? How can you dismiss 2 films that got stretched into two films because the material was so compelling?

Jesus people irritate me these days. Get a grip.

[Glenn Kenny]

Have thou not a cow, Don. We're just BSing over here.

[bill]

You should have kept holding off, Don.

[Joel]

Glenn, Che's shining moment in that speech was when he declared, "All citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check." Viva la revolucion!

[don lewis]

Well every other blog is predicting how bad the Cruise/Singer VALKYRIE movie is going to suck because *gasp* it got pushed back *gasp* TWICE!! Ahhh!! Noooo!! I just tire of the prognostications and guesses on how much a movie will make or the pre-judging of "quality" films based on their elements. Specifically lame elements like Che Guevara was mean so I won't see a movie about him. Blah!

In closing, it all smacks of the issues facing film criticism today wherein set visits, test screenings and bloggers judging movies before they come out are the norms for judging or critiquing movies. It annoys, ya hear...annoys.

[Dan]

"How can you consider yourself a fan of cinema if you're willing to totally dismiss a new Soderberg film based on the main character?"

On a personal level, it's because I live in Boston and have to deal with idiots lionizing Che, and because Soderbergh's "serious pictures" since "Traffic" have not filled me with enthusiasm. Basically, they've tended to be more about the cinematography or technical tricks rather than the stories. He's always been in love with technical challenges (witness splicing "Poor Cow" into "The Limey") but the challenges have overwhelmed the filmmaking on more than one occasion.

[Mike De Luca]

Right on, Don. Roger Friedman can hardly be considered a critic if an accent in a trailer is all he needs to pass judgement on a film.

[Glenn Kenny]

I don't think Roger, if pressed, would make a claim to being an actual critic. He's a professional gadfly, and unlike a lot of his peers he really enjoys it.

[don lewis]

"Basically, they've tended to be more about the cinematography or technical tricks rather than the stories"

Umm...aren't those casually thrown away (by you) techniques modes of storytelling? I mean, really? As far as your concerned a story has to be told in a conventional way for you to get it?

[Dan]

Well, Don, I don't view them as "modes of storytelling." Perhaps that's just simply a difference between us in the usage of language (when you say "mode" I think of somebody trying to emulate a certain style or critical adjective, i.e. "a surreal mode of storytelling").

I view them as spices, basically. And you can overuse any spice.

It's not like Soderbergh is the first filmmaker to fall prey to gadget lust, or that I think he was once great and now he's terrible. He's got great technical chops. I'm going to be working on my technique for years before I get to his level, if I ever do in the first place.

But it's really, really hard for me to believe that he wanted to make "The Good German" or "Bubble" because he liked the scripts, and really, really easy for me to believe he made them because it meant he could use this cinematographical contrivance or that. And you rarely wind up with a movie that's more than an "interesting experiment" when THAT happens.

[don lewis]

Why shouldn't a filmmaker aspire to be the forefather in something new and exciting? Or reinvent something? Or...try something new whenever he/she can?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Soderbergh. One mans show off is another mans rebel...or something.

[Dan]

I'll go with agree to disagree, but I will say this:

Being the first to use a new technique means nothing if the filmmaker cares more about that technique than the film he's making.