30 mai 2008

La Salamandra (2008/Aguero)

Cannes 2008 - La Quinzaine des Réalisateurs
La Salamandra (2008/Pablo Agüero/Argentina) Debut
Opening Sequence : Inti (6) plays alone in his bath. Someone is heard offscreen coming in the house while he holds his breath under water. But the camera stays in the bathroom, observing the boy for a long time. Like a continuation of his game he hunts down the suspect noises, dripping wet, with a toy gun in hand, listening to the walls. We finally see the intruder, Alba, a young woman in the boy's room packing his clothes. She calls him by his name but he doesn't know her. When his grand mother comes back home, she immediately covers him with her shawl without a word.
This clever wordless set up reveals a lot information on this family. The carefree innocence of the child, the surrogate maternal grandma, and the sudden unexpected return of the absent irresponsible mother.
Then Alba goes on in a long self-justifying rambling monologue, anticipating the questions and blames waiting in the silent eyes of her resentful mother and her alienated child. Her apologetic speech is hyper and discontinuous. She naively claims nobody can stop her to take her son down to Patagonia where an utopic life awaits them. She's obviously shook up and confused. Without ever spelling it out, we gather throughout the film that she was imprisoned during the years of dictatorship in Argentina, maybe for political reasons, maybe in a mental asylum.
Cut to Inti and Alba on a bus, on the road to Patagonia, skipping any explanations, negotiations, reasoning or warning to talk her out of this improvised journey. What spares us the unnecessary melodrama, also discredits the reality of this unquestioned mother-son bond, and the willingness of this boy to leave behind his usual comfort for some tiring vacations with an uncaring stranger...

The film is essentially centred on Inti's viewpoint, he's the protagonist always onscreen and limits what the audience sees to what this boy is able to perceive. Which emphasizes the role of the soundtrack, the unsteady camerawork and the offscreen events, assumed or suggested.
This reserved boy raised without parents is in the process of learning to read and needs serious formative structure to affirm his psychological development. Thus he asks a lot of embarassing questions and snoops around this messy international post-hippie community sporting free sex, unashamed nudity, drugs and all the New Wave trippy B.S. turning their egoistic trivial hedonist pleasures into cosmical importance (Karma, Feng Shui, anarchy, revolution...)

Pablo Agüero, the filmmaker debuting with this film, grew up in this remote region of extreme south of Latin America. I don't know if he was a native or if his parents were part of this hippie village, but the portrait of these local peasants is quite unflattering. Their children, left on their own, are violent, territorial and hateful. The new comers are threatened, exploited, their houses burnt down...

Alba lives in a fantasized dream and denies systematically the evil in people and the misery of her life. She rent her night stays for sexual favours to men who happily manipulate her innocent and careless sense of reality. And Inti witnesses the negligent "prostitution" of his mother, night after night, forcing him to take the adult responsibility of their family nucleus, with his clumsy juvenile attempts. When Inti begs to sleep in his mom's bed because he's scared at night (both for being alone and for what she does with the landlord) she explains he must confront his Oedipal impulse, which theoretical reasoning doesn't appease the instinctive phobia of a child...

Inti holds on to the transitory father figures in orbit around his mother, to pick up advice and project himself in a future to look up to. This theme of an "orphaned" child raising him/herself was also present in the wonderful La Influencia (2007/Pedro Aguilera) at last year's Cannes Festival (Quinzaine 2007). And in this year's selection, Versailles (2008/Pierre Schoeller) tells the story of a boy raised by a marginal hobo. It's also an atmosphere we find in Cria Cuervos (1976/Saura) or Nobody Knows (2004/Kore-eda) with a little more attention to the sensibility of a child's vision of the world.

The crowd scenes of raving hippies, moving from one room to the next, from one conversation to the next, from inside to outside... seem inspired by Béla Tarr's famous ensemble mise-en-scène.
The hand held camera always on the move is an interesting device to express the astray confusion of both this clueless mother and these hallucinated hippie generation. But its execution might be a little too ambitious at times. Certain gesture and dialogue start on cue when crossing the path of the camera, in the style of a De Palma steadycam long take, and it comes out too self-conscious and calculated for this less sophisticated mise-en-scène. Certain events are too conveniently cut out of the film altogether with dubious ellipses which doesn't necessarily serve the asceticism of the dramatic narration.

29 mai 2008

Knitting (2008/Yin)

Cannes 2008 - La Quinzaine des Réalisateurs
Knitting / Niu Lang Zhi Nu (2008/YIN Lichuan/China)

Daping and Chen Jin, a poor young couple land in the big city (which I assume is Beijing) and struggle to make some money. Chen Jin is ready to work for illegal jobs to pay the rent. But soon a third person, Haili, comes in and breaks the equilibrium with the new rules of a ménage-à-trois. She's older but uses her charm, which drives the plump, reserved, low-self-esteemed Daping jealous.

I believe they are immigrants and feel a bit alienated by the local population, thus forced to live in the same room. And the tension arises from one of them feeling alternatively left out of a duo. Daping is very young and insecure with her body, so she's sulking. Haili knows that well and keeps on pressing random accusations and blames to turn upside down the opinion of the impressionable Chen Jin, who just tries to show off with more drinking and more money. Meanwhile Daping doesn't know how to cope with her unprepared pregnancy.

This sounds like an emotional drama, but it's actually very quiet and slow, like knitting (which ends up being only a tangential gimmick from the title). The film is cut in stand alone scenes illustrating a conflict or a state of mind, observing the protagonists from a distance. Without immediate dramatic continuity between scenes, despite leaving suspended some unfinished cues. The photography is rather contemplative, and the storytelling observational. Though the melodramatic situations, even if largely underplayed, remain too formulaic to be considered a Contemplative Cinema. But the cinematography is very interesting in this category of narrative cinema.

Each protagonist hides from the others an outward bond that inevitably pulls them apart. Daping finds comfort with her best friend, who teaches her how to knit. Chen Jin gets involved in a dangerous but prosperous criminal network. Haili, the most mysterious, saves money for her child left behind, back home.

We find reminiscence of early Hou Hsiao-hsien (The Boys from Fengkwei/1983) or early Jia Zhang-ke (Xiao Wu/1997; Unknown Pleasures/2002) without reaching a comparable plot development.
It tells us about the broken lives of our contemporaries in China, the issues of having to seek work away from your home, to leave behind your family, to overcome uncomfortable situations and disappointing dreams.

The ending is my favourite scene. When Chen Jin has disappeared, and the rival women came to term together, they replay the couple situation from the beginning. Daping became motherly overprotective with a baby in her arms, and the bossy Maili fills the shoes of the man in the house by running the business and telling Daping to stop drinking bear. This is a nice picture announcing so much of what happened in the film and what will develop thereafter.

27 mai 2008

Top5 World BO 2007

Continuation from my first post on 2008 World Cinema Stats

Top5 global Box Office worldwide (2007) Worldwideboxoffice.com
  1. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA) $958.4M
  2. Harry Potter V (UK/USA) $937M
  3. Spider-Man III (USA) $885.4M
  4. Shrek III (USA) $791.4M
  5. Transformers (USA) $701.1M
These top5's (see below) compiled from the 2008 issue of the Cahiers Atlas make more evident and concrete the widespread of the Hollywood hegemonic domination on the world market.
This is only the very top of the Box Office in each country (a selective list of countries chosen by Cahiers), so we are really looking at what each audience watch the most, the best seller movies that the largest majority of movie goers want to see. The top 5 ranks don't account for the actual diversity of the viewers consumption, but it tells us which titles draw the widest enthusiasm.
If they are domestic films it shows the local industry is in touch with the mainstream taste of their population. But if we find foreign films in the top5, it means that the (majority of the) audience is open to outsiders, to a culture that doesn't necessarily reflect their own culture and language. If there are only foreign films stealing all the slots in the top5, it means either the local industry is very weak (unable to produce mainstream/commercial movies with a wide appeal), or that the number of domestic films produced is too small to compete with the large number of commercial imports. It's interesting to compare the composition of this top5 with the share of the domestic market in each country.

The only blockbuster worldwide distributed that is not strictly Hollywood, Harry Potter V, is actually a UK/USA co-production (I'm not sure if this super production can be considered a non-Hollywood movie).
The only two non-American blockbusters making a top5 outside of their country of origin are Lissi und der wilde Kaiser (a German movie in Austria) and Mr Bean II (a British movie in Portugal).
11 markets rank Hollywood-only blockbusters in their top5 (Canada, Quebec, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Malaysia, Australia, France, UK, Germany, Belgium). The 18 markets from this list that do not rank an all-5 Hollywood movies are :
  • domestic films 5/5 (India, Iran)
  • domestic films 4/5 (Turkey)
  • domestic films 3/5 (Morocco, Serbia)
  • domestic films 2/5 (China, Korea, Italy, Russia)
  • domestic film 1/5 (Japan, Hong Kong, Philippines, Sweden, Estonia, Spain, Switzerland, Romania, Israel)
For example, share of American movies on selected foreign markets (CNC):
  • Germany : 77.2% (2005)
  • Spain : 71.2% (2006)
  • UK : 63.1% (2005)
  • Italy : 61.9% (2006)
  • European Union (average) : 60% (2005)
  • France : 30% (2006)
(countries listed by continent and ranked according to the % of domestic share, Hollywood movies in red)


USA (Domestic 95+%)
  1. Spider-Man III (USA)
  2. Shrek III (USA)
  3. Transformers (USA)
  4. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  5. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
CANADA (Domestic 16.2%)
  1. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  2. Spider-Man III (USA)
  3. Transformers (USA)
  4. Shrek III (USA)
  5. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
QUEBEC (Domestic 10.7%)
  1. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  2. Spider-Man III (USA)
  3. The Simpsons (USA)
  4. Shrek III (USA)
  5. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)

BRAZIL (Domestic 11.7%)
  1. Spider-Man III (USA)
  2. Shrek III (USA)
  3. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  4. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  5. Night at the Museum (USA)
ARGENTINA (Domestic 9%)
  1. The Simpsons (USA)
  2. Shrek III (USA)
  3. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  4. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  5. Spider-Man III (USA)
MEXICO (Domestic 7.5%)
  1. Spider-Man III (USA)
  2. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  3. Shrek III (USA)
  4. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  5. Transformers (USA)

INDIA (Domestic 92%)
  1. Sivaji : The Boss (INDIA)
  2. Om Shanti (INDIA)
  3. Chak de India (INDIA)
  4. Welcome (INDIA)
  5. Partner (INDIA)
CHINA (Domestic 54.1%)
  1. Transformers (USA)
  2. The Warlords (CHINA)
  3. Assembly (CHINA)
  4. Spider-Man III (USA)
  5. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
SOUTH KOREA (Domestic 50.8%)
  1. Dragon War (KOREA)
  2. Transformers (USA)
  3. May 18 (KOREA)
  4. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  5. Spider-Man III (USA)
JAPAN (Domestic 47.7%)
  1. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  2. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  3. Hero (Japan)
  4. Spider-Man III (USA)
  5. Letters from Iwo Jima (USA)
HONG KONG (Domestic 22.4%)
  1. Spider-Man III (USA)
  2. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  3. Lust, Caution (CHINA)
  4. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  5. Transformers (USA)
THAILAND (Domestic 20~%)
  1. Tamnaan somdet phra Naresuan maharat (THAILAND)
  2. Naresuan (THAILAND)
  3. Spider-Man III (USA)
  4. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  5. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
MALAYSIA (Domestic 7.9%)
  1. Transformers (USA)
  2. Spider-Man III (USA)
  3. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  4. ?
  5. ?
AUSTRALIA (Domestic 4%)
  1. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  2. Shrek III (USA)
  3. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  4. The Simpsons (USA)
  5. Transformers (USA)
PHILIPPINES (?)
  1. Spider-Man III (USA)
  2. Transformers (USA)
  3. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  4. One More Chance (PHILIPPINES)
  5. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)

MOROCCO (Domestic 13.6%)
  1. Satan's Angel (MOROCCO)
  2. Nancy and the Monster (MOROCCO)
  3. Spider-Man III (USA)
  4. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  5. Rih Labhar (MOROCCO)
KENYA (Domestic 5~%)
  1. Malooned
  2. Benta
  3. Toto Millionaire
  4. Manga in America
  5. Help
FRANCE (Domestic 36.5%)
  1. Ratatouille (USA)
  2. Spider-Man III (USA)
  3. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  4. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  5. Shrek III (USA)
ITALY (Domestic 31.7%)
  1. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  2. Natale in Crociera (ITALY)
  3. Manuale d'amore (ITALY)
  4. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  5. Spider-Man III (USA)
UK (Domestic 29%)
  1. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  2. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  3. Shrek III (USA)
  4. The Simpsons (USA)
  5. Spider-Man III (USA)
RUSSIA (Domestic 26.3%)
  1. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  2. Shrek III (USA)
  3. Wolfhound of the Grey Dog clan (RUSSIA)
  4. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  5. Holidays (RUSSIA)
SERBIA (Domestic 25.5%)
  1. Crni Gryja i kamen mudrosti (SERBIA)
  2. The Simpsons (USA)
  3. Cetvrti covek (SERBIA)
  4. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  5. Sedam i po (SERBIA)
SWEDEN (Domestic 21.1%)
  1. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  2. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  3. Ratatouille (USA)
  4. Göta kanal II (Sweden)
  5. Shrek III (USA)
GERMANY (Domestic 18.9%)
  1. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  2. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  3. Ratatouille (USA)
  4. The Simpsons (USA)
  5. Shrek III (USA)
ESTONIA (Domestic 14.3%)
  1. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  2. Shrek III (USA)
  3. 186 kilometres (ESTONIA)
  4. The Simpsons (USA)
  5. Ratatouille (USA)
SPAIN (Domestic 13.5%)
  1. The Orphanage (SPAIN)
  2. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  3. Shrek III (USA)
  4. The Simpsons (USA)
  5. Spider-Man III (USA)
BELGIUM (Domestic 7.5%)
  1. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  2. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  3. Ratatouille (USA)
  4. Shrek III (USA)
  5. The Simpsons (USA)
SWITZERLAND (Domestic 5.4%)
  1. Ratatouille (USA)
  2. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  3. Late Bloomers (SWITZERLAND)
  4. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  5. The Simpsons (USA)
ROMANIA (Domestic 4.8%)
  1. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  2. 4 Months, 3 weeks, 2 days (ROMANIA)
  3. Shrek III (USA)
  4. 300 (USA)
  5. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
PORTUGAL (Domestic 2.8%)
  1. Shrek III (USA)
  2. Ratatouille (USA)
  3. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  4. Mr Bean II (UK)
  5. ?
AUSTRIA (Domestic 1.1%)
  1. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
  2. Ratatouille (USA)
  3. The Simpsons (USA)
  4. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  5. Lissi und der wilde Kaiser (GERMANY)

IRAN (Domestic 99.4%)
  1. Ekhraji-ha (IRAN)
  2. Tofigh edjbari (IRAN)
  3. Kalagh Par (IRAN)
  4. Kolahi barayeh baran (IRAN)
  5. Nesf mal é man, nesf mal é to (IRAN)
TURKEY (Domestic 32.4%)
  1. The White Angel (TURKEY)
  2. Kabadayi (TURKEY)
  3. Maskeli besler: Irak (TURKEY)
  4. Son osmali yandim ali (TURKEY)
  5. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)
ISRAEL (Domestic 14%)
  1. Ratatouille (USA)
  2. Shrek III (USA)
  3. Harry Potter V (UK/USA)
  4. Beaufort (ISRAEL)
  5. Pirates of the Caribbean III (USA)

source for the top5's worldwide : Hors Série Cahiers du cinéma Atlas 2008

09 mai 2008

2008 World Cinema Stats

Various statistics on the worldwide cinema market during the past year, and ranking by country for comparison :
  • All figures are from the year 2007, and followed by, in brackets, the years [2006] and [2005]
  • ~ means approximation
  • n/a means data non available or not surveyed that year


FILMS PRODUCED
(including co-productions)
plus figures for [2006] and [2005]
  • 1,146 -- INDIA [1,091] [1,041~]
  • 1,095~ - Europe [938~] [798]
  • 603 ---- USA [533] [611]
  • 407~ --- JAPAN [417] [356]
  • 402 ---- CHINA [330] [2,601]
  • 228 ---- FRANCE [203] [240]
  • 174 ---- GERMANY [122] [103]
  • 172 ---- SPAIN [150] [142]
  • 124 ---- SOUTH KOREA [110] [83]
  • 121 ---- ITALY [116] [98]
  • 117 ---- UK [134] [131]
  • 105 ---- IRAN [77] [66]
  • 85~ ---- RUSSIA [70~] [62]
  • 82~ ---- BRAZIL [73] [46]
  • 80~ ---- CANADA [n/a] [69]
  • 70 ----- MEXICO [64] [53]
  • 70 ----- ARGENTINA [63] [66]
  • n/a ---- CAMBODIA [n/a] [67]
  • 50 ----- Hong Kong [51] [55]
  • 46 ----- Québec [42] [27]
  • 45~ --- THAILAND [44] [39]
  • n/a --- TAIWAN [n/a] [43]
  • 43~ --- BELGIUM [37] [43]
  • 40~ --- SWITZERLAND [n/a] [n/a]
  • 40~ --- TURKEY [34] [27]
  • n/a --- EGYPT [40] [n/a]
  • 34 ---- AUSTRIA [n/a] [29]
  • 29 ---- SWEDEN [n/a] [n/a]
  • 27~ --- AUSTRALIA [32] [34]
  • n/a --- CZECH Rep. [n/a] [24]
  • n/a --- POLAND [n/a] [24]
  • n/a --- MALAYSIA [28] [23]
  • n/a --- DENMARK [21] [n/a]
  • 18 ---- ISRAEL [18] [n/a]
  • 18~ --- MOROCCO [15~] [15]
  • 17 ---- PORTUGAL [17] [14]
  • 17~ --- SERBIA [n/a] [n/a]
  • n/a --- IRELAND [15] [n/a]
  • 11~ --- KENYA [n/a] [n/a]
  • 10 ---- ESTONIA [n/a] [n/a]
  • n/a --- SOUTH AFRICA [10] [15]
  • n/a --- NETHERLANDS [10] [14]
  • 8 ----- ROMANIA [10] [n/a]
  • n/a --- LEBANON [n/a] [2]
RATIO 1
SCREENS AVAILABLE

(per film produced)

  • 78~: South Africa
  • 71.9~ : Australia
  • 64.6 : USA
  • 62.5~ : Netherlands
  • 56.0 : Mexico
  • 38.5~ : Lebanon
  • 37.5~ : Canada
  • 36.6~ : Turkey
  • 36.2 : Sweden
  • 35.9~ : Poland
  • 30.0 : UK
  • 28.2~ : Portugal
  • 27.8 : Germany
  • 27.8~ : Czech Rep.
  • 27.1~ : Ireland
  • 25.9~ : Brazil
  • 25.5 : Italy
  • 25.0 : Spain
  • 23.1 : France
  • 21.1 : Israel
  • 18.6~ : Denmark
  • 16.8 : Austria
  • 16.6 : South Korea
  • 16.5 : Québec
  • 16.5~ : Russia
  • 15.3~ : Taiwan
  • 14.3~ : Thailand
  • 14.0 : Argentina
  • 13.1~ : Malaysia
  • 12.2 : India
  • 11.8~ : Belgium
  • 8.7~ : China
  • 8.1~: Switzerland
  • 7.9~ : Japan
  • 6.7 : Estonia
  • 5.8~ : Egypt
  • 5.4~ : Morocco
  • 5.0~: Serbia
  • 4.0 : Romania
  • 3.8 : Hong Kong
  • 3.1~ : Kenya
  • 2.4 : Iran
  • 0.3~ : Cambodia


RATIO 2
TICKETS PER FILM
(Millions admissions sold per domestic film)
  • 3.1~ : Australia
  • 3.0~: South Africa
  • 2.5 : Mexico
  • 2.3 : USA
  • 2.3~ : Netherlands
  • 2.2~ : India
  • 1.7~ : China
  • 1.4 : UK
  • 1.3 : South Korea
  • 1.3~ : Canada, Russia
  • 1.2~ : Malaysia, Ireland
  • 1.1~ : Brazil, Lebanon
  • 1.0 : Portugal
  • 1.0~ : Thailand, Poland
  • 0.9 : Italy
  • 0.8 : France
  • 0.8~ : Turkey
  • 0.7 : Germany, Spain
  • 0.6~ : Denmark
  • 0.5 : Argentina, Québec, Sweden, Israel
  • 0.5~ : Taiwan, Belgium
  • 0.4 : Hong Kong, Austria, Romania
  • 0.4~ : Japan, Switzerland, Czech Rep.
  • 0.2 : Estonia
  • 0.2~ : Kenya
  • 0.1 : Iran
  • 0.1~ : Morocco, Serbia
  • 0.01~ : Cambodia

RATIO 3
FILMS PER CAPITA

(Films made per Million population)

  • 7.7 : Estonia
  • 7.1 : Hong Kong
  • 5.7 : Québec
  • 5.3 : Switzerland
  • 4.3 : Spain, Belgium
  • 4.1 : Austria
  • 3.8~ : Denmark
  • 3.6 : France
  • 3.6~ : Ireland
  • 3.2 : Japan, Sweden
  • 2.5 : South Korea, Israel
  • 2.4 : Canada
  • 2.4~ : Czech Rep.
  • 2.1 : Germany, Serbia
  • 2.0 : USA, Italy
  • 1.9 : UK
  • 1.9~ : Taiwan
  • 1.7 : Argentina
  • 1.6 : Portugal, Iran
  • 1.4 : Australia
  • 1.1~ : Malaysia
  • 1.0 : India
  • 0.7 : Thailand
  • 0.6 : Turkey, Mexico, Russia
  • 0.6~ : Poland, Netherlands
  • 0.5 : Morocco
  • 0.5~ : Egypt, Lebanon
  • 0.4 : Romania, Brazil
  • 0.3 : China, Kenya
  • 0.2~ : South Africa
  • 0.06~ : Cambodia

Worldwide Box Office in 2007 = $26.72 Billions [2006=$25.47 Billions]
  • 36 % (USA + Canada)
  • 33.4 % (Europe + Middle East + Africa)
  • 25.9 % (Asia + Pacific)
  • 4.7 % (Latin America)
Worldwide Admissions in 2007 = 7.91 Billions tickets sold [2006=7.69 Billions]
  • 63.7 % (Asia + Pacific)
  • 17.7 % (USA + Canada)
  • 14.2 % (Europe + Middle East + Africa)
  • 4.4 % (Latin America)


ADMISSIONS 2007
(Millions)
plus figures for [2006] and [2005]
  • 2,500~ - INDIA [5,000~] [500~]
  • 1,400 -- USA [1,395] [1,376]
  • 883.8~ - Europe [857~] [892]
  • 674~ --- CHINA [n/a] [1,430]
  • 178 ---- FRANCE [188.5] [175.7]
  • 175 ---- MEXICO [165.5] [162.5]
  • 164.2 -- UK [156.6] [164.7]
  • 163.2 -- JAPAN [164.3] [160.5]
  • 158.8 -- SOUTH KOREA [163.8] [143]
  • 125.4 -- GERMANY [136.7] [127.3]
  • 116.9 -- SPAIN [121.7] [127.6]
  • 106.6 -- RUSSIA [99] [91.8]
  • 106~ --- CANADA [103] [105]
  • 103.5 -- ITALY [107] [105.6]
  • 88.5 --- BRAZIL [90.2] [10.7]
  • 84.7 --- AUSTRALIA [83.6] [82.2]
  • n/a ---- THAILAND [n/a] [45]
  • 34.5 --- ARGENTINA [34.2] [37.2]
  • 31.2 --- TURKEY [34.8] [27.3]
  • 33.6 --- MALAYSIA [n/a] [26]
  • n/a ---- SOUTH AFRICA [29.7] [29]
  • 24.1 --- Québec [24.8] [26]
  • 22.3~ - BELGIUM [23.8] [21.9]
  • n/a ---- POLAND [n/a] [23.3]
  • n/a ---- NETHERLANDS [22.5] [n/a]
  • n/a ---- TAIWAN [n/a] [20]
  • 19.4 --- Hong Kong [16.8] [18.9]
  • n/a ---- IRELAND [17.8] [n/a]
  • 16.3 --- PORTUGAL [16.4] [15.7]
  • 15.5 --- SWEDEN [n/a] [n/a]
  • 15 ----- AUSTRIA [n/a] [14.5]
  • 14.2 --- SWITZERLAND [n/a] [n/a]
  • n/a ---- DENMARK [12.6] [n/a]
  • n/a ---- IRAN [11.5~] [7.8]
  • 9.7 ---- ISRAEL [9.5~] [n/a]
  • n/a ---- CZECH Rep. [n/a] [9.5]
  • 2.9 ---- ROMANIA [2.8] [n/a]
  • 2.5 ---- MOROCCO [2.5~] [6]
  • n/a ---- LEBANON [n/a] [2.1]
  • 1.8~ --- KENYA [n/a] [n/a]
  • 1.6 ---- ESTONIA [n/a] [n/a]
  • 1.4 ---- SERBIA [n/a] [n/a]
  • n/a --- CAMBODIA [n/a] [0.8]

DOMESTIC SHARE
(% of admissions for domestic films)
plus % for [2006] and [2005]

  • 99.4 % - IRAN [99~] [99]
  • n/a ---- USA [95+] [96.9]
  • 92 % --- INDIA [95~] [95~]
  • n/a ---- EGYPT [81] [n/a]
  • 54.1 % - CHINA [55] [68.5]
  • 50.8 % - SOUTH KOREA [64.2] [59]
  • 47.7 % - JAPAN [53.2] [41.3]
  • 36.5 % - FRANCE [45] [36.9]
  • n/a ---- CAMBODIA [n/a] [35]
  • 32.4 % - TURKEY [51.7] [42]
  • 31.7 % - ITALY [24.7] [24.7]
  • 29 % --- UK [19] [33]
  • 26.3 % - RUSSIA [25.7] [29.7]
  • 25.5 % - SERBIA [n/a] [n/a]
  • n/a ---- DENMARK [25] [n/a]
  • n/a ---- CZECH Rep. [n/a] [24.2]
  • 22.4 % - Hong Kong [31.5] [35.1]
  • 21.1 % - SWEDEN [n/a] [n/a]
  • 20~ % - THAILAND [36.2] [20]
  • 18.9 % - GERMANY [25.8] [13.9]
  • 16.2 % - CANADA [4.1] [5.2]
  • 14.3 % - ESTONIA [n/a] [n/a]
  • 14 % --- ISRAEL [10~] [n/a]
  • 13.6 % - MOROCCO [n/a] [18]
  • 13.5 % - SPAIN [15.4] [16.7]
  • 11.7 % - BRAZIL [11] [12]
  • n/a ---- NETHERLANDS [10.9] [n/a]
  • 10.7 % - Québec [11.7] [18.9]
  • n/a ---- POLAND [n/a] [10]
  • 9 % ---- ARGENTINA [11.4] [11.4]
  • 7.9 % -- MALAYSIA [n/a] [14]
  • 7.5 % -- MEXICO [7] [4.5]
  • 7.5~ % - BELGIUM [6.4] [4.1]
  • 5.4 % -- SWITZERLAND [n/a] [n/a]
  • 5~ % --- KENYA [n/a] [n/a]
  • 4.8 % -- ROMANIA [4.3] [n/a]
  • n/a ---- IRELAND [4.5] [n/a]
  • 4 % ---- AUSTRALIA [4.6] [2.8]
  • 2.8 % -- PORTUGAL [2.3] [3]
  • n/a ---- SOUTH AFRICA [2] [16]
  • n/a ---- TAIWAN [n/a] [1.59]
  • 1.1 % -- AUSTRIA [n/a] [2]
  • n/a ---- LEBANON [n/a] [1]

RUNNING SCREENS

plus figures for [2006] and [2005]
  • 38,974 --- USA [39,668] [38,852]
  • 25,028 -- Europe [25,803~] [29,046]
  • 14,000~ - INDIA [13,000~] [9,000~]
  • 5,264~ -- FRANCE [5,373] [5,314]
  • 4,832 --- GERMANY [4,848] [4,889]
  • 4,296 --- SPAIN [4,299] [4,383]
  • 3,920 --- MEXICO [3,892] [3,536]
  • 3,514 --- UK [3,440] [3,357]
  • 3,500~ - CHINA [2,940] [2,668-38,500]
  • 3,221 --- JAPAN [3,062] [2,926]
  • 3,087 --- ITALY [3,890] [3,280]
  • 3,000~ - CANADA [2,933] [3,200]
  • 2,120~ - BRAZIL [2,020] [2,081]
  • 2,058 --- SOUTH KOREA [1,847] [1,634]
  • 1,941 --- AUSTRALIA [1,964] [1,943]
  • 1,464 --- TURKEY [1,299] [1,333]
  • 1,400 --- RUSSIA [1,319] [1,000]
  • 1,049 --- SWEDEN [1,171] [n/a]
  • 980 ----- ARGENTINA [974] [789]
  • n/a ----- POLAND [n/a] [862]
  • n/a ----- SOUTH AFRICA [780~] [560]
  • 757 ----- Québec [771] [767]
  • n/a ----- CZECH Rep. [n/a] [667]
  • n/a ----- TAIWAN [n/a] [661]
  • 645 ----- THAILAND [645] [638]
  • n/a ----- NETHERLANDS [n/a] [625]
  • 570 ----- AUSTRIA [n/a] [552]
  • 507 ----- BELGIUM [527] [527]
  • n/a ----- PORTUGAL [479] [629]
  • n/a ----- IRELAND [407] [n/a]
  • n/a ----- DENMARK [391] [n/a]
  • 380 ----- ISRAEL [380~] [n/a]
  • 368 ----- MALAYSIA [n/a] [248]
  • 325 ----- SWITZERLAND [n/a] [n/a]
  • 255 ----- IRAN [276~] [n/a]
  • n/a ----- EGYPT [231] [n/a]
  • 192 ----- Hong Kong [198] [195]
  • 97 ------ MOROCCO [88~] [125]
  • 85~ ----- SERBIA [n/a] [n/a]
  • n/a ----- LEBANON [n/a] [77]
  • 67 ------ ESTONIA [n/a] [n/a]
  • 34 ------ KENYA [n/a] [n/a]
  • 32 ------ ROMANIA [110] [n/a]
  • n/a ----- CAMBODIA [n/a] [19]

SCREENS PER CAPITA
(per Million population)

  • 160~ : Iceland
  • 128.6 : USA
  • 116.5 : Sweden
  • 107.4 : Spain
  • 99.3~ : Ireland
  • 98.7 : Québec
  • 94.2 : Australia
  • 90.4~ : Canada
  • 82.2~ : France
  • 71.1~ : Denmark
  • 69.5 : Austria
  • 65.4~ : Czech Rep.
  • 58.9 : Germany
  • 57.7 : UK
  • 53.5 : Israel
  • 53.1 : Italy
  • 51.5 : Estonia
  • 48.8 : Belgium
  • 45.2~ : Portugal
  • 42.8 : Switzerland
  • 41.8 : South Korea
  • 37.7~ : Netherlands
  • 35.7 : Mexico
  • 28.9~ : Taiwan
  • 27.4 : Hong Kong
  • 25.3 : Japan
  • 24.1 : Argentina
  • 22.4~ : Poland
  • 20.4 : Turkey
  • 19.3~ : Lebanon
  • 17.8~ : South Africa
  • 14.6 : Malaysia
  • 12.0~ : India
  • 11.1~ : Brazil
  • 10.5~ : Serbia
  • 9.9 : Russia, Thailand
  • 3.9 : Iran
  • 2.8 : Morocco
  • 2.8~ : Egypt
  • 2.6~ : China
  • 1.5~ : Vietnam, Tunisia, Ukraine
  • 1.4 : Romania
  • 1.3~ : Cambodia
  • 0.9 : Kenya

References from :
Analysis in comments below.
Continue reading in my next post : Top5 world BO 2007

06 mai 2008

Twin games about unfunny stuff (1)

Funny Games (1997-2007/Michael Haneke/Austria-USA), dual versions.
Opening Sequence :
Opera music opens the film. From a God's point of view, we see a car trucking a sail boat drive down the speedway. Classic exposition scene: the summer vacations atmosphere is set, upper class family, high-brow cultural taste, quiet moment away from the daily life. Aerial views of the car moving in traffic, in gradually closer shots to isolate it. The car plays hide and seek under the trees sheltering the sinuous road. The voices are heard before we see their faces. First we see close ups of the hand using the on-board CD player. Then the family trio through the wind shield. The model nuclear family, one single son (the spoiled child-king), is symbolized by this confined environment on wheels. A car like an armoured bubble protected from the rest of the world, culturally, socially. This individualistic society is emphasized by their high-security lake-shore property within a wealthy neighbourhood, similar to gated communities.
First game, a guessing game

The father and the mother play to each other a blind track from their collection of opera CDs. The child plays the arbiter to make sure neither cheats. In fact they are enacting an ironic drama: "I have a secret, can you guess what it is?" It's funny to hold a certain information and mock the silly guesses, the struggle with memory to find out this familiar name from a shared culture. Even the child who doesn't play, seems to find this situation entertaining. His parents are tested for their knowledge, their brains, their alertness, and alternatively look ridiculous and impressive.
Suddenly non-diegetic loud punk music covers the mundane dialogue behind the wind shield as we see the lips continue to move unaware of this aggressive blast of noise. The initial innocent game will set the rules of the horror to come.

This shot of a couple talking silently seen through the wind shield of their car reminds me of the opening sequence of Polanski's Knife in the water (1962), which, incidentally, also features a wealthy family driving to a sailing resort and picks up a foreign intruder along the way who will excite underlying tension within the couple and break apart their relationship. Also, between the original Funny Games (1997) and its remake, we have this german film, Summer '04 (2006) by Stefan Krohmer, where a family on sailing vacations will meet a stranger who dissolves the apparent happiness of this model family.

Though Haneke cuts short before any of these family drama consequences. And this couple sticks together against all evil till the end. But nothing says whether this traumatised couple would have survived much longer after this tragedy.

A (non)judgemental milieu

The arrival of the family at their spacious vacation villa caricatures the insular traits of the upper-class milieu. A trivial conversation about a golf game with the neighbors degrades into speculative gossips just because their polite salutations were not as enthusiastic as they expected. But in this hypocritical society they don't ask what's wrong, they just move on as if everything was normal. And that's the affected correctness excuse the intruders will use to infiltrate this very selective community, just like a Trojan horse.
There is no reason to suspect the intentions of the two young men in white since their income-equals next door invited them... or so they assumed. Since nobody asks embarrassing questions, they sneak in this house and will use the unspoken mutual trust of informal acquaintance to move to the next victims. Don't forget good manners get you anywhere.
An automatic gate with remote control, a barking dog, a shotgun and a knife prove to be ineffective against an insider using back doors, allegedly recommended by their peers. The major incentive to tolerate party crashers overstay their welcome is of course the risk to tarnish their good reputation because of a silly misunderstanding. We already noticed how the esteem for their neighbors started to lower just because the wife didn't return a "hello". Remember the scene from Lynch's INLAND EMPIRE (2006) where the neighbour lady comes out of the blue and gently forces her way into Nikki Grace's fancy villa.

This idea to turn the serial killer genre typical procedure into a viral disease is thought-provoking. They spread like plague, door to door, by means of human contact. The smart salesmen of an invisible crime virus.
It's because these bourgeois are highly judgemental and attached to superficial behaviour in private, and because they are hypocritically non-judgemental in public that reputation makes them to do things they would normally don't. Intentionally or not, the incognito-killer's current hostages not only covers them by lying to the visitors who come around, but they help them make new friends, soon-to-become victims. We see this at work from three sides.
First from the viewpoint of the unaware victim, when the protagonists meet the "choir boys" on their neighbour's front lawn, introduced as "relatives". Secondly (a countershot of this initial scene) from the viewpoint of the hostage, when the mother is obliged to lie to her friends who happen to sail by and, despite herself, introduces Paul to his next unaware victims. And finally, the closing scene, now knowing all about their standard procedure, we see the similar scene from the viewpoint of the aggressor, when he first knocks at the door of a potential victim. Like Peter did when he first asked the eggs.
In retrospect, we can reconstruct the context of the three "assaults" by interpolating what is not seen in the other scenes. By the end of the film we have a better idea of what happened to the neighbors (with hindsight their daughter was probably already dead when they were seen playing golf unenthusiastically), and in the final scene we realise the demons-in-angel-clothes will never bring back eggs supposedly required by the couple across the lake (since they are already dead).

Haneke plays around with what is said by a character and what is heard and assumed by another, with the space between what shall never be asked and what doesn't want to be known. That's how evil cleverly sneaks in the cracks, the language gap and the overcompensated polite correctness.

Ironically, Ozu plays the same game in Ohayo (1959), although never as revoltingly, when the two kids decide to call for a silent treatment and cause an escalation of misunderstandings within a convivial middle-class neighbourhood where the fear to earn bad reputation turns every little details, such as "good morning", suspicious.

Immaculate criminals

At the antipode of traditional serial-killer movies (which usually judge a book from its cover), Haneke chooses not to demonize his villains. They aren't crazy-looking, ugly, repulsive, scary, impressive or even threatening. They are regular guys, younger, well-mannered, educated, helping, smiling, cute faced, seemingly harmless and dressed in virginal white.
Like a caddie or a butler, they wear white gloves (which doesn't seem to surprise anyone in this conservative milieu). Paul says the gloves protect others from his eczema, but maybe they protect him from direct contact with his victims. Above all they are fingerprint-proof!
This immaculate purity goes against the basic rules of empathy in conventional genre movies, and makes the audience all the more disappointed when they realize they have been manipulated into rooting for the poor guys who are unjustly kicked out by the moody family mother. The cool attitude of youth versus the uptight superior bourgeoisie. Until we realise how far the "game" goes... when they finally confess their intention to kill them.

In fact the gentlemen-killers are the main protagonists and the narration assumes the evil viewpoint, with their procedure in plain view for a change. The tension relies on a huis-clos setting (single location drama). The suspense doesn't play out on a parallel montage showing the police investigation on one side and the criminals whereabouts (or only their shadow/traces) on the other side to build up the traditional converging, climactic chase.
The movie doesn't even seem to leave hope for any help from the outside (the phone doesn't work, the cars don't stop, no neighbors around within walking distance). Actually, these criminals seem overconfident and omniscient like a Devil incarnation. They know everyone and every house layout in the area, the short cuts, the security systems. They never seem to bother for their safety, to be careful not to alert the neighbors, to worry about the police or an armed stranger popping out... They are in control of everything, never surprised, always adapting, cold-bloodedly improvising, always ready to counter any reactions of the victims without taking precautions. As if they rehearsed this routine all their life. They walk in with empty pockets, then conveniently pick up a blunt object (a golf club) from their victims on site, and as the situation gets more unstable, a shotgun and duct tape become handy. But words are their main deterrent throughout.
There is no real expectation of them being caught. The film relies entirely on the cat and mouse game between the intruders and the victims.

to be continued... next part here