Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Festival. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Festival. Afficher tous les articles

16 juillet 2026

Thierry Frémaux : portrait en 4 tableaux (Laurent Beurdeley)

« Composer la sélection, c'est arbitrer et choisir. C'est une prise de risque, ce n'est pas une science exacte mais un exercice relativement complexe et rigoureux qui consiste, explique le délégué général, non pas à retenir les films qui correspondent à ses goûts personnels mais bien de mettre en lumière ceux qui méritent d'être montrés. »

Laurent Beurdeley ; Thierry Frémaux : l’infatigable architecte du Festival de Cannes et « troisième frère Lumière. » Figure de proue de la Croisette (1) ; 5 juin 2026


« Incontestablement le judo fut tout sauf un simple passe-temps, il devint ceinture noire 4ᶱ dan, une performance qu'il cultive avec discrétion comme il se doit. Ce sport a profondément façonné et forgé sa personnalité. Ce fut une école de vie qui lui inculqua la maîtrise de soi, la rigueur, le courage, l'humilité, la réflexion, le calme intérieur, l'équilibre entre force et souplesse. »

Laurent Beurdeley ; Thierry Frémaux : l’infatigable architecte du Festival de Cannes et « troisième frère Lumière. » Un parcours atypique : Le sport avant le cinéma (2) ; 14 juin 2026


« Dix-sept mètres de pellicule, cinquante secondes enchanteresses, "j'en suis immédiatement tombé amoureux" révéla-t-il (ce fut incontestablement le début d'une longue aventure puisqu'il n'aura de cesse, dans les années à venir, de valoriser, de faire découvrir dans le monde entier les œuvres des frères Lumière). »

Laurent Beurdeley ; Thierry Frémaux : l’infatigable architecte du Festival de Cannes. La Matrice : l'Institut Lumière à Lyon (3) ; 20 juin 2026


« La flamme mystérieuse qui l'anime tient probablement à la ferme conviction d'être investi d'une mission cardinale, celle de protéger et de transmettre un précieux patrimoine légué par des générations de cinéastes depuis Louis et Auguste Lumière, de défendre bec et ongles tous ces artistes audacieux qui osent bousculer les codes et les formes pour révéler leurs regards singuliers sur le monde. »

Laurent Beurdeley ; Thierry Frémaux : l’infatigable architecte du Festival de Cannes. La mise en œuvre de projets ambitieux (4) ; 28 juin 2026




13 mai 2013

Dans la foule des grands festivals (France Culture)

Culture monde (France Culture) : Dans la foule des grands festivals

Avec : Elisabeth Lequeret (journaliste à RFI, critique de films, elle participe à l'organisation du festival de Berlin) ; Luisa Prudentino (professeur à l'Inalco, spécialiste du cinéma chinois) ; Patrick Frater (journaliste (Variety, Screen international et Hollywood reporter), fondateur du site Film Business Asia)
Depuis sa création en 1946, le festival de Cannes s’est affirmé comme un rendez-vous cinématographique majeur au niveau mondial. Mais que signifie cette suprématie? Comment la comprendre? Les autres grands festivals européens, comme celui de Berlin, sont-ils les « concurrents » de Cannes, ou leur fonctionnement est-il complémentaire de celui du festival français? Y a-t-il des logiques de « passage obligé » dans ces festivals pour les films présentés au public? Comment ces logiques, si elles existent, évoluent-elles depuis quelques années?
Au-delà de l’identité de chaque festival et des raisons qui ont poussé à la création de chacun d’eux (Berlin créé pendant la guerre froide, Cannes après la 2e guerre mondiale, Venise sous Mussolini), nous allons essayer de comprendre le fonctionnement actuel de ces grands rendez-vous. Nous tenterons aussi de comprendre ces logiques en nous intéressant au cinéma asiatique: depuis quelques années des festivals de cinéma majeurs y ont lieu, en particulier celui de Busan en Corée, centre névralgique du cinéma asiatique, et temple par excellence du cinéma chinois, un cinéma qui d’ailleurs est parti à la conquête de l’Europe grâce à de très nombreux festivals qui lui sont consacrés. Du cinéma d’auteur aux grands blockbusters internationaux, des festivals européens aux nouveaux grand rendez-vous asiatiques, petit tour du monde des grands rendez-vous du cinéma aujourd’hui.

2. Festivals d’Afrique : moteur culturel ou utopie? (07.05.2013)  49' [MP3]
Avec : Eloi Ficquet (anthropologue et historien, maître de conférences à l'EHESS) ; Jean-Marie Téno  (réalisateur franco-camerounais) ; Simon Njami (curateur, organisateur entre autres de la Biennale de photographie de Bamako)
A l’aube des indépendances africaines, naît toute une réflexion sur le rôle de l’art et de la culture dans l’émancipation des peuples d’Afrique. Léopold Sédar Senghor fut à l’origine du premier festival mondial des arts nègres organisé en 1966 à Dakar. Il s’agissait alors de «parvenir à une meilleure compréhension internationale et interraciale, d’affirmer la contribution des artistes et écrivains noirs aux grands courants universels de pensée et de permettre aux artistes noirs de tous les horizons de confronter les résultats de leurs recherches» déclara l’ancien président sénégalais. Puis une 2ème édition eu lieu en 1977 au Nigeria, puis à nouveau à Dakar à l’occasion du 50ème anniversaire de l’indépendance du pays.
D’autres festivals furent créés par la suite:
- le Fespaco (Le Festival panafricain du cinéma et de la télévision de Ouagadougou), certainement LE plus grand festival cinématographique africain né en 1972 et qui se déroule tous les deux ans dans la capitale Burkinabé, Ouagadougou.
- la biennale de Bamako (aussi appelée les rencontres africaines de la photographie) qui, depuis 1994, promeut de grands artistes du continent dans le domaine de la photographie.
Quel bilan peut-on dresser de ces manifestations culturelles? Permettent-elles de soutenir un développement culturel pérenne? Que représentent-elles pour les scènes artistiques locales? En quoi aident-ils à définir une identité culturelle africaine? Que nous disent les festivals sur les liens entre pouvoir, Etat, marchés de l’art, culture en générale? A quel(s) public(s) s’adressent-ils?

3. Sur la route : le quotidien des festivaliers (08.05.2013)  49' [MP3]
Avec : Anne-Marie Autissier (maître de conférences à l’Institut d’études européennes de l’Université de Paris 8, en sociologie de la culture) ; Emmanuel Ethis (sociologue, président de l'université d'Avignon) ; André Ménard (créateur et directeur artistique du festival international de Jazz de Montréal)
Les événements artistiques rassemblent de véritables communautés le temps des représentations que ce soit autour de spectacles de danse, de musique ou de théâtre: les festivaliers constituent un corps. Mais quoi de commun entre ces publics selon les festivals fréquentés? Selon qu’ils soient orientés vers le grand public (les grandes messes des musiques modernes comme Sziget en Hongrie) ou plus élitistes (comme le Festival de Salzbourg: un festival d'opéra, de théâtre et de musique classique créé en 1920 par le metteur en scène Max Reinhardt et l’écrivain Hugo von Hofmannstha). Comment les programmateurs s’y prennent-ils pour fédérer ces différents publics?
Quels publics pour quels festivals? En quoi ces publics ont-ils changé ces dernières années? Et qu’est-ce qu’ils nous disent des évolutions des grands événements culturels en France et en Europe? Il semble que, de plus en plus, les festivals s’imposent comme une forme majeure dans le paysage culturel. Comment l’expliquer ?




Related:

09 novembre 2012

Change the frame to make us forget the picture... (festivals)

Mark Cousins believes that the pretty fun framing is what makes film art better for the audience

Film Festival Form: A Manifesto (Mark Cousins; Film Festival Academy; 22 Septembre 2012) [PDF]


Is this what a seasoned "festival critic" comes up with? What a self-indulgent prick! If film culture is in crisis it's because of douche-bags like these, not because the carpet on the floor of festivals is red... 

What is tragic is that there are more and more spoiled brats like this clown who share such demented ideas around a few beers while they wait outside the VIP room, bitter, whining for being rejected from special events of no importance to serious film critics... They text each-others grandiloquent theories about what festivals should be like and muster the courage to publish it for the world to see, even after sobering up... Why aren't festivals built around ME, MY TASTE, MY FANCY, MY WHIMS, MY NEED FOR ENTERTAINMENT? Why are actors and directors the stars of festivals and not movie reviewers? Why do they get VIP rooms, red carpet, galas and we don't? Basically, this smart-ass doesn't care to provide a better service for filmmakers, their film, or cinema itself, in general. NO. What he wants is to change the format of ALL FESTIVALS to serve his need for ADDITIONAL distractions. Films aren't enough in and of themselves... he wants more action going on around their screenings, to make the event more memorable to superficial douche-bags who only remember the packaging. If Kiarostami comes with a "boring" film, let the curator spice it up to his liking, so that the repetitive job of a movie reviewer becomes more exciting. Yeah right! 
You really don't understand anything about art, dude! You don't know what is the role of a festival, and you don't know how to stay in your place, the place of a reviewer subaltern and complementary to the art exhibition, not as a substitution for it. 
If you want to make general recommendations about the format of a cultural event, you need to accommodate most everyone, not to impose an incredibly narrow-format that obviously only suit your idiosyncratic fancy and that most everyone else will definitely not enjoy or desire...

If cinema is art, then a festival is its art gallery, thus MUST remain the most neutral showcase to present each work without influencing the audience in one way or another, and let the film speaks for itself and seize the audience attention any which way its creator chose.
If Maurice Lemaître, wants the projection of his film to become an event-performance in itself, this is HIS prerogative and he will CONCEIVE his work to be projected in a very specific (unconventional) way (instructions included). But if a festival curator decides to screen a given film to his own fancy, without consulting the auteur, it is a crime against the art, not a celebration of whatever the filmmakers wants to show. This lost soul (Mark Cousins) confuses festival screening with art happening, détournement, hi-jacking, defacing, vandalism... 
If you want your documentary on the history of cinema to be screened in one theatre for the first half, then send everybody home where they can download on a cellphone the next 30 minutes... this is your choice, the choice of the maker, and it means you didn't put much thoughts into your editing process if the projection continuity can be interrupted and disrupted in such careless manner. But if you do that to a Bresson film, you're a douche, not a genius curator.

Did you see how your peers react to anti-conformist formats? How they booed Bresson, Pialat, Antonioni, Gallo, Lars Von Trier, Carax... What makes you think that these morons who get offended by the content and form of films themselves, would welcome your proposed performance art around screenings??? Are you dreaming or just high? Did you see what your bored colleague Nick James writes about festivals at Sight & Sound when they aren't mainstream enough? Did you see how Americans think that the choice at the Oscars is too elitist??? You're out of your mind if you think that there are a lot of people who await for a more transgressive festival format.  

If you think filmmakers aren't capable enough to come up with their own creative screenings, and festival curators are too timid, why don't you get off your ass and go MAKE YOUR OWN deconstructive festival, and deface films all you want??? See how many filmmakers will accept your invitation... LMAO. 
And I'm not saying "Do It Yourself" to challenge you to achieve the task you criticize (like idiots demand critics to become filmmakers before being able to judge a movie)... You need to carry out this project yourself because this is YOUR INDIVIDUAL AGENDA. This is not the business of the festival circuit to create a value-added container for films lacking self-worth. If you can find filmmakers interested by your proposition, if people enjoy your sacrilegious event, all dandy. But YOUR prototype has no chance to become THE only standard (which your manifesto kinda wants to impose on everyone), and even if the a-cultured audience makes your thing viral because they prefer trashing art, than integer art itself, there will always be a role in society, in culture, in the film industry, for the "traditional format" of film festival that you hate : to introduce premières to world critics in a formal yet neutral way.
Even an experimental artist would rather come up with their own built-in screening conditions (however wacky and improvised) than let a random curator with no artistic training temper with they way they designed their work to be interacted with... They wouldn't even let another (trained, experienced, famous) artist alter the projection ritual with an artistic sensibility that might contradict the intention of the film (unless it was part of an agreed upon collaborative project)!

Sorry Orson Welles, we can't screen your cut of The Magnificent Ambersons, we'll let James Cameron recut it for you and screen its 5 new chapters in 5 different theatres simultaneously. FUN!
Sorry Stanley Kubrick, we can't screen Barry Lyndon the way you intended it, it will be re-cut by Godard, and screened on an iPod as a 5 minute accelerated trailer. FUN!
Sorry Tarr Béla, we can't screen The Turin Horse as a normal film, it will be recolourized by Disney and screened in digital format on a 60 inches TV set. FUN!
Yay, finally someone is there to improve upon whatever these "incapable" filmmakers could achieve on their own. (saracasm intended; sometimes I have to state it for the dummies who still read my blog targeted at an educated readership who already knows I'm defending auteurs and their sacred right to final cut)

"the world of film festivals is, in fact, in crisis"
Mark Cousins can't get in the VIP room, is bounced out at the private party on Tom Cruise's yacht  has to wait in line like everyone else because the colour of his badge doesn't match the colour of his credit card... Weep. Weep. Let's all cry and empatise, because there is a WORLDWIDE CRISIS of UNPRECEDENTED PROPORTIONS raging the GALAXY OF THE FILM FESTIVAL CIRCUIT : Mark Cousins doesn't get what he wants!!!!! OMG! The end of the world is near. TELL EVERYONE!!! We must change the format of festivals for EVERYONE, because Mark Cousins and 3 of his frustrated beer buddies dream of an entertainment park where reviewers are treated like the center of the world. 
Do you see filmmakers complain about festivals? Do they refuse en mass to attend them? Is there a generalized boycott? Do the curators complain? Do the audience complain? No. Not really, it's mostly frustrated movie reviewers who want apples to be oranges, just because.

"There are too many of them chasing world premieres and film celebrities"
Yeah, well... that's kind of the point, you know. That's your way to look at it, the half-empty glass. But then again, when you look at it another way, maybe festivals are different from your local multiplex because they only screen the best. And maybe film celebrities are sought after because they are the best at what they do. So if you expect festivals to pick second-hand films and unknown artists, maybe just maybe, they won't be "festivals" anymore and become another local community center that nobody cares about and where great masterpieces will never be discovered. 

"we should think of them as authored, just as films are authored. We should think of them as narratives – stories lasting ten days or two weeks, just as films are narratives"
Do you think so poorly of festival curators? Don't you think their selection is in itself a very personal touch? Some even suggest they are being way too idiosyncratic... Don't you realise that the films are programmed with a certain event narrative in mind? Like it or not, but there is a narrative (while respecting the singularity and neutrality for each film). They don't queue films one after the other in a random order. And every decision taken will piss of at least one of the nominees, because they wanted their film to be screened at another time slot... 

"There should, therefore, be no red carpets at film festivals. No limos. No VIP rooms"
... because art films don't deserve the celebrity treatment! We should embrace the fact that art cinema is an invisible niche, dull and austere, and get together in a dark moldy basement, because deference and ceremony is only appropriate for superficial stars in Hollywood who make big business. Why make low-key artists feel like they are the celebrities of the art world? Why waste a red carpet at an art festival if its BO can't afford it? Why shine a spotlight on art cinema once a year, if they should remain invisible all year?

"they are poetry not prose"
They are neither. Festivals are not literature (art), they are the book cover, the marketing packaging (showcase)!

"The people who run film festivals must think of themselves as storytellers and stylists. They must ask themselves what the narrative structure of their event is, and its aesthetic."
Yeah. And that's exactly what Mussolini wanted to do with Venice... impose his own fascist narrative onto world cinema, and highlight a very particular agenda that supersedes the art of individual films themselves. You can do that when you're a dictator, when you believe that YOUR OWN IDEA OF AESTHETIC is the only right one, and everyone else (guest filmmakers, critics and audience) must submit to your narrative, your choices, your ideology. That's when you don't think that artists should be allowed to speak for themselves and be presented to the public on equal footing, in a neutral context that doesn't favor one aesthetic or the other. A respectful festival makes rooms and lets shine each and every artist and film, each tendency, each form, each ideas, without tempering, without favouritism, without decorative mannerism. The glamour aspect you don't like (which is an unfortunate, but inevitable, collateral ritual of our over-mediated era) is only an exterior mannerism, it is the same packaging for every award nominee, it doesn't interfere with the own presentation filmmakers already decided for their film, BY SCRIPTING THEM, CASTING THEM, STAGING THEM, DIRECTING THEM, EDITING THEM, MIXING THEM!!!! This is what is called a cinema narrative and filmmakers do it by themselves, they don't need someone at the door to make last minute changes... 

"And there’s the whole issue of festivity itself to restore to the centre of the world of film festivals."
Yeah, cause if films can't be fun in and of themselves, we need an event-planner to make them more fabulous than they are, so that the audience who came to watch movies will leave with the satisfaction of spending a day at the entertainment park! LOL
So you're saying that the current format of film festivals is not "festive" or "communal"? What festival do you go to? Do you realise there is more communal experience (like at an actual screening in a commercial theatre open to the public) at a festival screening than at your weekly press screening in a tiny luxury screening rooms reserved for professional critics, among themselves, in leather seats twice the size of one in a normal commercial multiplex, sharing the same press kit material, exchanging the same talking points the press will agree to run its columns on, making spoiled brat faces, petty, disgusted, overfed, bored with themselves)

"[..]to counter this [fascist Venice at its inception], two alternative festivals were launched, one in a former fishing town, Cannes, and one in the ‘Athens of the North’, a centre of the Enlightenment, Edinburgh."
LMAO. Bias at its best! The Enlightenment was born in the UK? We'll have to correct all our books in Paris then... Cannes is a posh spa resort for rich Russian mafia tycoons, like most towns on the Riviera. But let's paint it as a noble proletarian village of hardworking fishermen to best serve Cousins's artificial narrative... He's complaining about fascism and marketing and he's doing exactly like them, only that when he deceives to serve his ideology it's not lying it's "printing the legend"... Hilarious, if it wasn't terribly sad.

"Toronto International Film Festival’s Piers Handling called this counter-market an ‘alternative distribution network’"
Then he's an idiot. See: Artfilm Visibility (festivals)

"Festivals should be radically about joy, about countering alienation, about telling the world of money and commodity that – ha ha – it doesn't know the secrets of the human heart or the inexpressible, stupendous need to be with other human beings."
LOL. Cause the world of profitable movies isn't already about "joy" and "countering alienation" with escapism. Yeah I see the totally different format you propose to counter the BO hits... Right. Comedy doesn't do well in the mainstream masses, so let's throw away the "serious film" and give their place in the sun to MORE FUCKING COMEDIES!!!! More Fun!!! Cause we're babies and we cannot live without FUN, FUN, FUN. Don't make us think, don't feed us vegetables, don't talk about depressing stuff. Let's live in Willy Wonka's colourful chocolate factory. 

"Film festivals should be more sceptical about business and industry. They should be the conscience of the film world. [..] A film festival is a shape, a response to the lay of the land and light of a city, or to a flood in Pakistan, or the threat to bomb Iran."
Sure. Mark Cousins wants festivals to be more political, more involved with tragic stories... OF COURSE. But not with depressing films, only with JOY, FUN, ENTERTAINMENT. Let's be the conscience of the world while having a bit of fun, right? Let's talk gleefully about bombing! Let's show the joyful side of a flood! He's so far up his own ass, he doesn't care about contradicting himself, about wanting one thing and its opposite and voicing out his disagreement with both options alternatively, a few sentences apart. Does he read himself before publishing what he writes? Does he think a bit before writing? 

"The people who run film festivals [..] challenge themselves to do things differently."
Let's put it bluntly, your counter-proposition to the current state of the festival circuit is not an improvement, no matter how bad you think it is. In fact, it is an heresy of a festival that you call for. So if you really want THAT to happen, you need to label it as something else. It doesn't walk like a duck, it doesn't quack like a duck... You're offering a new event where films aren't shown in their intended form, you're mutating their image, like Warhol transform the Campbell soup... however, Warhol was an artist (i.e. a producer of his own content), he didn't sell tomato soup, he sold his image of can. A curator is NOT an artist, who could produce new content with old content. If you transform existing films, you don't show these, you show DIFFERENT FILMS that didn't exist before.

Berlin showed A Separation, and the UK only screened it on 30 screens nationwide... As far as I'm concerned, the Berlinale is doing its political duty, and UK critics are failing to carrying on the job until the public can also see that film!!! Cannes is showing This Is Not A Film (Iranian censorship), After the battle and 18 Days (Egyptian revolution), Plus Jamais Peur (Tunisian revolution) Duch, le maître des forges de l'enfer (Cambodian genocide)... and critics pan them because they are too anti-conformist! If something is wrong at festival it's the narrow-minded mentality of movie reviewers!!! Change the critics, not the festival format!

What political films aren't showing at festivals? You name drop a lot of pop culture references in your manifesto... you could at least give us a few examples of your superior taste in cinema that apparently all festivals on the planet have ignored so far... Where are these films that nobody is talking about? Find them! Show them! Surprise me, let's see if they rival in quality the ones that end up on the Year-End Lists (which are mostly drawn from major festival line up, because these festival do their job, collectively, of bringing the best)... Complaining about a shortage of quality in hypothetical terms is quite easy. But being specific and relevant requires a little more legwork, and thinking. 




P.S. Oh by the way, Mark, the diacritic accent on the "e" of "mise en scène" goes the other way... Nobody cares anyway. Spell it however you want, create your own narrative! If the language doesn't suit you, make it fit YOU! That's the way of the navel-gazing individualist. MY FUN ABOVE ALL. ;) 


Related: 

22 octobre 2012

Artfilm Visibility (Festivals)


Mistaking the festival circuit (pre-commercial showroom for professionals) with the regular commercial distribution (in arthouses or multiplexes with several shows a day, 7 days a week)


There are too many movie reviewer smartasses who believe that the festival circuit has become the viable alternative to artfilm distribution... (especially in the pages of Sight & SoundFilm Comment or the NYT! But Kristin Thompson also professes such agenda). They are in total denial about the derelict state of the arthouse circuit in their respective country, fatalistic about the immuable situation (the arthouse circuit represents less than 1% of all ticket sales and it is humanly impossible to do any better than that, ever), and imagine that with the sprawling development of more and more mini second-hand festivals the future of artfilms is brighter than ever. Well I'm sorry to say, but this is demented!

The above chart shows the number of seats made available for a given film, according to the size of its distribution, and compared with the equivalent in festival screenings.

A few remarks first. These numbers indicate the maximal number of seats offered to the public (in normal commercial exhibition) for one film projected in theatre on an invariant number of screen(s), which implies that the theatre(s) function at full capacity on a period of 2 months. They are compared with an hypothetical run of the same film on the festival circuit, assuming that film gets picked up by a new festival every week of that period (which is wishful thinking).
I used rough numbers, just to get a ballpark idea of the huge gap that widens every week depending on the range of distribution proposed. 
Thus for a festival screening I used an average of 500 seats per screening, counting 2 screenings per festivals (the major festivals may give certain films an auditorium of up to 3000 seats twice, but smaller festivals will only open a 100 seaters once). Festivals are attended by an avid crowd so we may assume that every screening is fully booked (which is not the case for every title though).
For the arthouse circuit I opted for a typical arthouse with an average of 200 seats (which may vary depending on the location in a megapole or in low density urban area), and an average of 5 shows a day, 7 days a week. Assuming that the title runs for 8 weeks in a row (which is extremely rare for an artfilm, which is usually dropped after the second week). When a film takes a long time to be picked up by a distributor, and only opens on a handful of theatres, the potential audience is anticiating and rushes in, knowing the occassion to see it on the big screen will not happen again soon, so we may assume a fully booked theatre for the first week at least. Then the attendance dwindles down over the 2 months period (and few films manage to stay on that long in the real world!). This is just a rough simulation. The average filling of seats is usually 15% in France, maybe a little more in the USA, scarcity of screenings making potential viewers more eager, and the general attendance rate per capita (5 films per year per inhabitant, however less than 1% of the screens nationwide are arthouses, so the rate is mostly inflated by the high attendance of multiplex goers) is also higher than in France (3 films per year per inhabitant).
As a comparative, I've also added the typical distribution in multiplexes for a mainstream movie, from 1000 screens for commercial movie with low expectations and up to 4000 screens for a tentpole blockbuster. A multiplex offers bigger auditorium, so I counted an average of 300 seats, and more shows per day (6). The attendance in a multiplex is expected to be fully booked for the opening weekend (4 days) even with such a plethoric number of venues, and shall dwindle down also, but probably at a slower rate than in the arthouse circuit. So the average filling of seats over 2 months is higher (around 30% I believe).

This distribution system corresponds to a market like the USA, with a commercial exhibition that ranges from 1 screening once for an unpopular artfilm, up to 4000 screens nationwide (10% of all screens available) per week for a blockbuster. In France the scale is somewhere between 5 or 7 times smaller, the blockbuster status starts at 800 screens nationwide.

You can see that a small arthouse (1 screen/200 seats/5 shows a day) can match a festival venue (1 screen/500 seats) in only 1 day, in one week that single arthouse shows that film to as many spectators as 7 festivals, while a film can hardly show in more than 1 festival per week. In 2 weeks, before being ousted out by an impatient theatre programmer, it matches up to a run in 14 festivals, and this is a shameful distribution to open a film on only 1 screen nationwide, it should never happen (unless it is an extremely inaccessible piece of experimental cinema only targeted at gallery visitors). In an hypothetical run of 2 months, this dreadful distribution corresponds to a run in 56 festivals, which is more than what the average artfilm would hope to be invited to (excepting the few festival darlings that every festival wants to line up).
Only 1 miserable screen for an entire country (be it Luxembourg or the USA) is absolutely dreadful and an insult to cinema, no matter how bad the film is, every film should be given a decent chance to meet an audience, and this is obviously not the way.

With a release on 6 screens nationwide (still a dreary distribution, even for a bad artfilm), at the end of a 2 months run, it would have offered as many seats as 300 festivals!!! How could the festival circuit ever replace a commercial distribution??? Not a single film gets lined up 300 times in the same country, provided the country has that many festivals willing to arbor it (many local festivals are genre or format exclusive). Here we need to balance out the higher attendance rate of a festival screenings (once or twice per city) and the much lower attendance in arthouses for a simultaneous nationwide release. Even with this consideration in mind, any decent arthouse circuit distribution (at least 30 screens) would offer a wider audience than the maximum number of festivals a film could get! 
In France a low artfilm distribution is between 15 and 30 screens, a good distribution is at least 90 screens, and a very popular artfilm may get up to 400 screens, half of the blockbuster level a mass-appeal mainstream genre film gets. In the USA, very few artfilms get more than 30 screens nationwide... and most of what they consider "artfilms" are actually mainstream foreign titles. A once in a blue moon success such as The Artist, supported by the Oscars, reached 1500 screens (a 1/3rd of the blockbuster level) after 15 weeks of struggling "limited release"! This is an exception that doesn't happen every year. Even the so-called American-made "indies" (quite conventional and mainstream in taste) are often restricted to the "limited release" too... There is a stronghold of the 6 major studios on what gets shown to the American public, making constraining deals with exhibitors, in spite of the anti-trust law.


Pretending that it's OK to show any film on only 1 screen (and in this case, it's never for a 2 months period, more like only 1 week and ciao) is an irresponsible thought for a movie reviewer, worse if that reviewer is holding a statement in prints! Every sensible critic, even any mere journalist, should feel outraged by it, and see it as big enough an anomaly to mention it in the review! or better to fucking COMPLAIN about it (in print) to the lazy distributor, the mercantile exhibitors, or more generally to a flawed system... until such recriminations become a public debate at the national level and things start to be taken into consideration for changes and improvements!!!
Why none of this happen in countries where artfilm distribution is struggling? Do they not care at all about how many of their fellow countrymen will get the option to see that film?
Even the great artfilms do not raise such legit concerns... Look at the underexposition of masterpieces (featured in the S&S top10 poll of all time), best films of the year, films awarded at major festivals, critically acclaimed films, or even films nominated at the fucking Oscars! If it's not PG-13, it DOES NOT GET a normal wide distribution. Period. This is bullshit! The USA is a society where culture for the masses is regulated by the moral limitations of a 13 yold. And when I say "masses", I mean the ENTIRE POPULATION minus the happy few living in a megapole where the film was shown for a week... This is a serious concern. Don't you think the press should make it its duty to report this injustice, and campaign actively until something change in the fabric of this corrput system? 
Yeah, it happens when there are actual cinephiles working in the press, as distributors and exhibitors, instead of fucking individualist bastards who would rather make money on a trite half-baked flick than to give its chance in the sun to precious little gems that everybody should and must see. But, what do you expect from selfish reviewers who work for the promotion of the officially approved slate of weekly titles, and don't care about the visibility of the films for everyone else once they saw it themselves (on a free DVD screener delivered to them on a silver platter). Complacency breeds hegemony of the lowest common denominator, and the momentum is too heavy to overturn when nobody stands up against it.

How many national festivals will it take for an artfilm to be accessible to 1% of the population? How many years will it take for a film to screen in that many festivals?
With 50 screens during 2 months (a limited release in selected cities) a film could offer 3 million seats, which would be an accessibility to only 1% of the USA population with theatres running at full capacity! Any less than that and we fall under the symbolic 1%. And most artfilms in the USA, especially foreign imports (which includes mainstream genre movies that get near blockbuster status in their country of origin), never get even 50 screens for 2 months...
A blockbuster takes less than 2 months with fully booked theatres to become accessible to 100% of the USA population (in numbers, not necessarily in proximity and affordability)!
I'm not contesting the difference of scale between a blockbuster distribution and an "elitist" artfilm distribution... But why must the gap be so tragically huge? This is the question that never keeps movie reviewers awake at night, because they never wonder why, they don't care wherever the wind blows as long as they are paid to promote the standard marketing talking points. 
There is no mystery, if the arthouse system is in dire straits, it's because NOBODY fights for it. You can't always blame the bad taste of the American population, sometimes, when you don't make challenging films AVAILABLE at all, the population doesn't even get the opportunity to reject or adopt them... 


Festivals play a key role in the life of an underexposed artfilm. Obviously. To signal its presence to reviewers who only ever watch foreign films (for example) or debut films at festivals, because they never go out of their way to hunt for these themselves (they stay at home and complain about how bad a job festival curators do). To generate a buzz among journalists. To give directors a pristine screening, and a platform for interviews, connection to distributors and even network for future films. 
But we can't ask festivals to do more than what they are meant for. A festival circuit, however vast and numerous, will never be able to replace a NORMAL COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION (not even the "limited release" of a niche "arthouse film")!!! And they only reach out to the same type of population : professional critics, filmmakers, curators and festival goers. Their opening to the more general public, and especially in rural areas and remote cities is very very limited. The general public is not concerned by the slates of film festivals.


* * *


"[..] What Two Years At Sea suggests is that there is a chasm between a festival screening and a screening in a commercial cinema setting. Rivers' films failed to come...... when it was released into a competitive market festival a few months after the 2011 London film Festival. Various factors can be called into mitigation, including the increasingly saturated market place, weak scheduling and the non-conventional narrative [..]
When it comes to Two Years At Sea, The Arbor, Las Acasias, Snowtown, Samson & Delilah, and other titles that constitute a commercial risk - but whose festival success suggests that they have a currency - surely there's room for an initiative that allows films to screen without exposing them to rigorous commercial expectations that many of them cannot possibly hope to fulfill? Where festivals do differ from standard exhibition practice is that films are pretty much presented on a relatively even keel. Once a 'niche' title readers the general marketplace, however, it cannot hope to compete with the mainstream in terms of advertising spend and publicity, yet it will be judged over the same three-days box-office performance. [..]"
A Haven for Art Films (David Locke; Sight&Sound; Nov 2012)
There is already a sheltered alternative to "standard exhibition practice" with "commercial risk"... it's called the "arthouse circuit" ! This is where "artfilms", films will small-audience-appeal and low commercial potential can be projected for longer than an opening weekend, or 2 weeks at best. They can stay on for weeks, where the cinéphile crowd can discover them on the long run, without the costly marketing brainwashing. But when you let your arthouse circuit die out... obviously, you believe that there is only festivals left standing to fulfill the commercial role of an arthouse. And this is bullshit! First it's misjudging the situation and the economy of the system, secondly it's proposing a bandaid for a wooden leg...
Why should "artfilms" be relegated to roaming aimlessly from festival to festival, like free-samples at an agriculture fair, just because expensive mainstream crap holds a monopoly of ALL screens available?

Two Years at Sea is labeled "experimental", although its only a realistic documentary (since when people need a special effort to look at life as it exists in the real world???), the other titles mentionned are merely "artfilms", they are not mass-appeal by any means, but anybody could watch them provided they are the least open-minded, and not totally conditionned by the pre-digested blockbuster culture... These films could and should get easily 50 screens in a country the size of the UK, 200 in the USA, because they are beautiful, worth discovering and most importantly a prime alternative choice to the monotonous offering of mass-appeal entertainment.
We do not expect art films to get a blockbuster treatment anytime soon! Although an import like A Separation reached 1 million spectators in France last year!!! But on the other hand, there is a VITAL MINIMUM of screens that any films must get in order to enter public conversation. 

* * *


Related :

17 juillet 2012

Frémaux-Taddéï (France Culture)

Le tête-à-tête (France Culture; 15 juillet 2012) 59' [MP3]
Frédéric Taddéï s'entretient avec Thierry Frémaux, programmateur du Festival de Cannes.
Il a longtemps vécu aux Minguettes, dans la banlieue lyonnaise.
Il est ceinture noire de judo et dirige désormais l’Institut Lumière à Lyon.
Mais il est surtout délégué général du festival de Cannes depuis plus de dix ans, poste qui fait de lui l’un des hommes les plus courtisés du cinéma mondial. Il voit 700 films par ans au minimum et en sélectionne 50 pour le plus prestigieux festival de cinéma du monde.

Voir aussi : 

28 mai 2012

Philip Kaufman masterclass (Cannes 2012)

PHILIP KAUFMAN UNE LEÇON DE MISE EN SCÈNE
Director of the celebrated film The Right Stuff and the film adaptation of Milan Kundera’s novel The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Philip Kaufman has been a prominent figure in American cinema since the 1960s. Originally hailing from Chicago, he is now strongly associated with San Francisco where he has lived for the past 50 years.
His body of work includes both independent and studio films – “a wide-ranging body of work that draws on his unique elements of style and philosophy”, explains Annette Insdorf, who has just written a book about him.
Screenwriter (he co-wrote the original story for the script of Raiders of the Lost Ark with George Lucas) and director, Philip Kaufman will be interviewed by Michel Ciment about his work and his films and about developments in American cinema.
Cannes Film Festival 2012 (25th May 2012) 1h10' [Français] [English]

Autres masterclasses :
  • NORMAN LLOYD UNE LEÇON D’HISTOIRE (24 mai 2012)  
  • ALEXANDRE DESPLAT « UNE HISTOIRE PERSONNELLE DE LA MUSIQUE DE FILMS » (19 mai 2012) 

26 mai 2012

Repeat Whiner (Cannes) Season 2 Episode 4

Cannes Roundtable II: On Carax, Resnais, Kiarostami, Lee Daniels, and more (FilmLinc; 25 May 2012)
With : Joumane Chahine (Profil), Stefan Grissemann (Profil), Marco Grosoli (La Furia Umana), Amy Taubin (Film Comment), Gavin Smith (Film Comment), Scott Foundas (Film Comment)


The second part is a little better, but there are still unforgiveable B.S. that professional journalists (let alone critics) should never utter...

Scott Foundas: "People who have been coming to Cannes much longer than I have seem to be saying this Cannes is the most this, or the least this. But this is my ninth or tenth time here, and I’ve rarely felt that one year is so dramatically different from another, and once five or six months go by, you still usually see the major films of the year at Cannes."
He's got a momentary surge of wisdom!

Amy Taubin : "But this is just a terrible Cannes. There are a handful of films that are very good, but I can’t make a list of 10 films that I want to report about. That’s never been the case."
Do you need me to dig up all the garbage you review all year long, when the American distribution system dictates what approved titles you're allowed to talk about? Hypocrit !
"never" I like how definite and assertive she is... never room for nuance. See Foundas's comment above.
Then she speculates on why a film was lined up on this section rather than that section, and based on these allegations blames the festival for not satisfying her dictatorial whims... Yeah sure, Amy's feeling of a perfect festival is what EVERYONE must agree the festival must be like.

So you will only be remotely happy with the achievement of a Cannes selection when 10 out of 10 films on your year-end top10 are from Cannes? Thus, Cannes would have ALL the world's best films, consequently Venice, Berlin, Toronto and all the others would have none, and fill in with below-par material? You need to stop whining like an amnesiac baby at every festivals and start considering the material constraints and limitations of a festival on the festival circuit, in the world industry, on the yearly calendar... incorporating the fact that some masters prefer to premiere at other festivals, or didn't finish their films in time... and of course, the human fallibility of the curatorial team... We don't expect the Cannes team to get it right 100% of the time, not in a world where taste is so diverse and antagonistic! There will always be a whiner to find the "perfect selection" not to his/her taste... Live with it!

Joumane Chahine : "[..] I think Hong Sang-soo is bringing meaninglessness to a new level. People around me seemed to enjoy it but I saw no whimsicality, only emptiness."
Gavin Smith : I feel as if Hong is committing himself to being a minor filmmaker and staying in a narrow field.
Wow. Thanksfully, there are actual critics who disagree with that. Hong Sang-soo is one of the greatest fiction maker working today. The inability to sense the subtlety of his cinema is proof that todays journalists are stuck in the XXth century. La critique de Papa... The problem is not that I disagree with your uninspired taste, dude, it's how disrespectful and condescending is the expression of your misunderstanding of an art form you're unable to grasp.

Scott Foundas : "I agree on the Hong, but I quite like Kiarostami’s In Another Country."
Let's ignore the fact he mismatched Hong's film title with Kiarostami's, and that nobody EDITED this on the website... Oh the irony of the superiority of print journalism editors... But it doesn't matter, American readers don't process whatever is published in the American press, they just swallow undiscriminatively, uncritically... and film writers abuse this blissful complacency by publishing bullshit.
Scott Foundas : "This to me is Reygadas’s Tree of Life or 2001. [..] I don’t think something like Uncle Boonmee is minor—in his way, that’s his Tree of Life or 2001."
Compare Mexican or Thai cinema to American-centric models, the only thinkable model possible... right? why do you have to compare Reygadas to Kubick or Malick's experimental one-off masterpiece? It's not like if Reygadas made conventional films in the past...

Amy Taubin : "I’m suffering from digital depression at this festival—one digital film after another in which there is a total absence of light."
Why don't you fight the digital conversion in your country then? Hollywood pushes for an ALL-DIGITAL by the end of 2012 (and sets the world standards in the industry worldwide, unfortunately), and the ridiculous number of 250 arthouses in the USA will shrink even more because of the Digital conversion necessary investments, instead of building up to a more healthy number. I didn't see Film Comment do ANYTHING, so don't complain all of the sudden when you're outside of your country... this is hypocritical. 
Amy Taubin : "I don’t care about those films either because they’re minor. Do I want to sit through a language of that? I don’t at all."
See roundtable part 1. She's got only one catchphrase... lol

Amy Taubin : "You can take a grand subject and still make a minor film. He’s still a minor filmmaker and he’s only interesting to people who have not grown up with the avant-garde. And that’s what’s happening here. People who have no knowledge of the first avant-garde or even the second avant-garde think these films are fantastically experimental and they aren’t."
Wait. I was agreeing with you when I thought you meant Réalisme Poétique (French Impressionism), Cinéma Pur, Dadaïsm and Surréalism (which were the First and Second Avant Garde of Silent Cinema in the 20ies). But if you believe you've "grown up with the AG"... you obviously mean New American Cinema (Structural-Materialism, Underground) of the 60ies, unless you're 100 years old... So your attempt to be condescending to the new generation of "ignorant" viewers is a fail and comes back biting you in the ass! Silent Impressionism was a better aesthetic reference for this Reygadas film.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with actualizing formal experiments made in the past, with a totally contemporary touch to it. There is really no point to reject a film proposition based on such a superficial aspect. If anything, there isn't enough truly creative formal experiments (ground-breaking or not) in today's cinema.

After bitching about world cinema's more narratively inventive, more formally experimental... they gush blissful praises to the American films in competition... which most of the press agrees are failures and don't deserve to be in competition. So I guess people don't judge films based on merits but based on fanatical irrational patriotism... which is sad. They are unnecessarily nitpicky (petty, superficial, knee-jerk) with world cinema, and overpraising mediocre American movies (again based on superficial whimsical feelings)... this is not film criticism, this is not fairness, this is not impartiality.

Scott Foundas : "I think everything you say is the intention of the film [The Paperboy] —and it was rendered slapdash without any guiding principle of style or tone."
Stefan: "I think it’s all style and no story."
Self-contradictory comment on the SAME film. Either it's all style or no style... Because they don't know what they're talking about, and use words with their own idiosyncratic/contradictory definitions of them.

Joumane Chahine : "No Latin Americans."
WTF? Walter Salles and Carlos Reygadas are in competition. And a dozen others in the parallel sections (Benjamín Ávila; Yulene Olaizola; William Vega; Pablo Stoll Ward; Pablo Larraín; the cuban omnibus; Michel Franco; Pablo Trapero; Juan Andrés Arango, Raul Ruiz; Juliana Rojas, Natalia Garagiola)
See : Les nouveaux noms du cinéma latino-américain (Débats de la Quinzaine 2012)
Marco Grosoli : "Aida Begic’s Children of Sarajevo is a medium but good film. Why not put that in. It seems like a statement to have no women."
Sure! Last year Cannes puts 4 women in competition and gets praised for it. This year, there's none and now the festival has a known agenda to suppress women... Oh the convenience of short-term memory...! Get real dude! Are you a critic who thinks critically or just a fucking pundit out there to spew random talking points to fire up your readership??? Giving opinions about a synopsis is rather easy for anybody to do... But if you want to tackle grand political subjects, make sure to KNOW how CRITICISM works.

Scott Foundas : "Last year there were quite a few women, so it’s quite random. It’s not unique to Cannes. People invent trends or scandals that are quite banal, and it’s a way of avoiding actually engaging with the films and the content. It’s just smoke and hype."
Words of wisdom. I wonder how he wisened up... See Roundtable 1 and The log in the eye of the beholder
Gavin Smith : "Oddly enough, France, which is one of the most sexist countries in the world, has more active female directors than others."
Yeah right. It's up there along Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Algeria, Egypt, China, India, Malaysia... French women can't vote, drive, marry freely or divorce, live alone, wear flesh-revealing clothes, get an education, vote, get a job, hold political offices... LOL Gavin Smith has no clue what female discrimination amounts to in the world, and surely wouldn't pass on an occasion to pull random libel out of his ass... I wonder if the USA is any less culturally sexist than France (which it is, because we live in a patriarchal/fallocrat WORLD, in almost every country as a matter of fact, unfortunately). 
Amy Taubin (follow up): "That’s because of the state support for filmmaking [in France], like in Australia."
Sure smartass. All you have to do is to pour money and women will change overnight from being a suppressed demographic to a creative artist community. As if there was less money available in Hollywood than in the French industry to justify the lower number of prominent female directors... Go tell Alice Guy, Germaine Dulac, Marguerite Duras, Agnès Varda, Claire Denis, Pascale Ferran, Ariane Michel, Catherine Breillat, Julie Bertuccelli, Sandrine Veysset, Zabou Breitman, Agnès Jaoui, Emmanuelle Bercot, Valeria Bruni Tedeschi, Dominique Cabrera, Catherine Corsini, Julie Delpy, Virginie Despentes, Lola Doillon, Nicole Garcia, Delphine Gleize, Brigitte Roüan, Lucile Hadzihalilovic, Jeanne Labrune, Isild Le Besco, Maïwenn, Céline Sciamma, Ounie Lecomte, Noémie Lvovsky, Laetitia Masson, Danièle Thompson Isabelle Mergault, Coline Serreau... that they only got famous because of subsidies and not thanks to their own talents and the feminism of French society. LOL


What a bunch of clueless talking heads! How do they get an accreditation at Cannes is mystery to me... Cannes must be really desperate to get broad press coverage in the USA! That's what I find outrageous in the making of this festival, not whether the yearly film batch is a little better or little worse than the previous year... To each his own priorities.


I don't think it should be this easy for me to make fun of their ignorance, clumsy ideas and uncalled-for insults. Not for people who call themselves "critics". You're a critic when you are able to manage rhetoric to serve grand ideas, not to manipulate your dumb readers and get away with it because you're too lazy or too deceptive to seek truth instead of facile sensationalist controversies... so-called "seasoned reviewers" should aim for higher standards than that.
There are so many ways honest, competent critics can and should debate over contrasted taste, argumentative views, valid opinions... to nurture a rich and profound film discourse about serious things and credible thoughts. That we could do without all the worthless shit that careless pundits put out, like the Fox News of film criticism... disparaging films and critics you disagree with, with total disregard for objective understanding of reality and the limits of decent educated taste...

I don't write these counter-reviews, or meta-criticism, to convince the writers in question, cause they're probably too far up their own asses to even consider being wrong or too proud to accept having to make amends. But I'm writing this in the hope that some people on the interwebs will read this in 100 years and think for themselves whether I am being utterly subjective and gratuitously aggressive or if I'm making sense and pointing at unacceptable mistakes. Maybe a few readers will stop swallowing this shit blindly and take what they find in the press with a grain of salt and not put these journalists on an undeserved pedestal... Only then general culture will improve and useless reviewers will have a harder time getting prominent positions in the institutional press to dumb down the masses. Because, contrary to them, I believe in higher cultural aspirations and higher standards for the film press. 



Related:


24 mai 2012

Repeat Whiner (Cannes) Season 2 Episode 3

Cannes English-language Roundtable (23 May 2012): Amy Taubin (Film Comment), Gavin Smith (Film Comment), Todd McCarthy (The Hollywood Reporter), Scott Foundas (Film Comment) :

Gavin Smith : "I wasn’t in the Lumière, but was there a standing ovation at the end of the Michael Haneke press screening? [..]  I mean, was there a lot of applause?"
Yeah, Cannes is all about the standing ovations... LOL That's the kind of trivial detail shallow people remember of important events. If the film is shown at an eldery retirement home, or to paralytics, will you tell your friends the film sucked because nobody stood up for 20 minutes to applaud it? It's all about showing off and appearances...

Todd McCarthy : "Because you have to say it was a downer film. It wasn’t one of those exhilarated “whoopee”–type screenings."
"downer" and "whoopee" is the vocabulary of a film critic talking about films selected at the most prestigious festival in the world? wow you must feel so much superior to cinema's best... Maybe you can print this in THR about fucking Hollywood flicks... but you could show a bit of respect and deference for proper films made by people who care for their work (informal conversation or not).

Scott Foundas : "if this movie [Matteo Garrone's Reality] had just shown up here and it wasn’t this film that Matteo Garrone had made right after Gomorrah, and it wasn’t shown in the official competition, people would like it a lot more. [..]"
Gavin Smith : "You’re basically saying that it suffers from the burden of expectation, which always seems to apply in Cannes when somebody’s had a big success."
Guilt by association. You realise that most of the "problems" with Cannes are what the public brings in, right? An actual critic should be able to ignore the pre-screening gossips and concentrate on judging the work on its in-film merits. What's all this B.S. talk? Not only you play the expectation/anticipation game like the random moviegoer, but it becomes an evidence to demolish a film now? WTF?
Yes films in competition are judged more harshly, that's the point of a competition! that's the price to pay to get the privileged platform, as opposed to "off-competition" or screening else where in the world.

Scott Foundas : "I think it’s sometimes easy to take those guys for granted a little bit and not take them as seriously as some of the more capital-A Auteurs."
I hope you're not one of the whiners who complain that Cannes only invite the same Auteurs over and over then... What do you want in Cannes, quality auteurs or new faces? Fucking flip-floppers who use whatever talking-point is more convenient to always have something to whine about in every context! And never put forth a stance because they believe in it and held a coherent history supporting that stance for ever. 

Amy Taubin : "That doesn’t mean I thought it [Reality] was good, or that I wanted to be sitting there for the length of it, which I certainly didn’t."
Nevermind your job is to attend EVERY screening you're supposed to cover, back-to-back, regardless for its quality... because you're a fucking REVIEWER, not a self-indulgent moviegoer! But thanks for sharing this incredibly banal (consumer-grade) thought... is that how articulate is a reviewer compare to anyone else? If you had given a few thought to the responsibility of your job, you would never utter such B.S. in public, much less when it's recorded for later publication... Fucking pathetic. See Slow films, easy life (Sight&Sound) 

Amy Taubin : "And it [Beasts of the Southern Wild] had a standing ovation in a mixed screening. Press was there, students were there—the students loved it—and normal people, whoever they are, were there, so it was that kind of mixed thing, and it was fantastic."
Aspiration for the average... She goes to an elite festival (specialized in showing challenging art-oriented non-commercial films that have a hard time getting distributed in the world in general and in the USA in particular) and what she looks for is the populist confirmation of the all-sorts crowd... You can stay in Sundance if you only care for feel-good movies!

Todd McCarthy : "It’s one of the most deliberately vulgar and unattractive casts that’s ever been assembled. No doubt, absolutely on purpose."
WTF? This is just plain insulting. Even for a mere spectacle consumer it would be libelous. But for a "critic", this is embarassingly unprofessional. Some people don't even filter random ideas popping up in their head... You'd think a "trained reviewer" would know better...
 
Gavin Smith : "Fair enough, but basically what that means is that Michael Haneke refuses to leave his comfort zone as a filmmaker, and I think that it’s really time that he did that. [..] Well, that’s not what I mean by comfort zone. What I mean is that Michael Haneke is very comfortable making films in a certain milieu. This film was fine in that milieu. In effect, I came full circle and I wasn’t questioning it, but I do think that going forward in his career he needs to look elsewhere. [..] I do think that Ken Loach should start making films about other classes of people in England."
I'm glad there was someone to speak up against such B.S.
Amy Taubin, Todd McCarthy and Scott Foundas dare to stand up to their editor and pound some sense into him. See Comfort Zone in Contra-Contrarianism (IFFR) 4 
One mentions the suicide of Haneke's aunt, another his family of musicians, and Gavin Smith mischaracterizes as a mere "comfort zone" what is the basic autobiographical input any writer, any artist, any filmmaker uses to nourish his/her fictional stories. Total "authorism" fail. You don't have to abid to the Auteur Theory to know that an author uses personal life experiences first and foremost, whether it ends up obvious or in a concealed/criptic way. Besides it's not a reviewer's prerogative to decide the content chosen by an author. And we only appreciate the diversity of themes, social classes, milieux, historical periods on a comprehensive scale encompassing all authors of a certain country or globally worldwide. You can't blame one given author for not making a film about that theme you want, or for repeating familiar themes. The community of films balance out eachothers. One completes the lacks of others and vice-versa, in terms of representative diversity.
You may examine the content, contextualize, criticize it, but if you reject it altogether (as if someone wasn't allowed to make a film about that, or had made too many films that way) you cross the line of critical duty and step down into the average consumer selfish demands. In Hollywood, studios supply whatever the audience asks for. But in real life, filmmakers make films because they have something to say, from within, not to pander to a potential audience, or petty reviewers...

That's a lot of bullshit that refuses to die out... Until USA deals with film culture education, American reviewers will remain this shallow, petty and whining like babies until they get what they want, exactly the way they asked for, and right now.

But wait, this isn't over. In the same roundtable, Gavin Smith makes a 180° turn and start defending the "comfort zone" of Beyond the Hills, after Scott Foundas blamed Romanian directors for sticking to their "New Wave" comfort zone and Amy Taubin complained about The Hunt  :
Gavin Smith : "On the contrary, I couldn’t disagree with you more [Beyond The Hills]. There’s a small core of filmmakers in Romania who are making most of the important films, and all of these films enter into an intense dialogue with each other from film to film, and I think that’s fascinating. There’s not enough of that going on in the world, it seems to me. [..] You had a visceral reaction to just having that story retold [The Hunt]. It’s not a new story. There’s nothing new in this film."
B.S. ! Reviewers who just throw random disorganised ideas don't mind for long term coherence of a consistent line.
Finally, everyone agrees about the evil of the "comfort zone" when it comes to Hong Sang-soo. WTF? They have no clue what they are talking about, and are not qualified to talk about artfilms. And then :
Scott Foundas : "Yes, one of the great body filmmakers. David Cronenberg, a guy whose whole career has been about body horror." 
So is it a "comfort zone" to be identified as the "filmmaker of body horror" or is it something to be praised for? I think you need to sort yourself out before coming up with contradictory bullshit theories about what art should or should not be...

Todd McCarthy : "There were bold aspects to it [De rouille et d'os], too, but the very same story, treated a different way, could have been a very conventional, middle-of-the-road Hollywood movie. So in that sense it wasn’t as exciting as some other works of his. But I thought it was a very good film, quite credible—fine."
Hypothetical straw man! Yeah, if you tweak this and that, and take out all the good elements, the great performances, the skills, the inspiration, the style... you end up with crap. Oh really? That was a very informative statement. If you cared about the Hollywood sub-standard formulaic stories, maybe you'd be a bit more vocal about the absence of artfilms in your country dude! And it's not about WHAT you film (it could be the most banal or cliché story) but HOW a filmmaker translates it, what he does with it.

Scott Foundas : "I could have counted down to the minute that shot was going to cut to black. I found it very mannered, very self-conscious. [..] And then when the camera started to track, I thought, OK, we’ve got about 30 seconds until it’s going to cut off on a shot of just these two guys, everyone else framed out, and a conversation that doesn’t have anything to do with the movie."
LOL. Yeah dude, being able to predict cuts to the second makes you a better "critic"... Brag away! Is this film criticism or weather forecast???

Amy Taubin : "I think the Vinterberg is a terrible film. I think it’s dumb. I can’t even talk about why it’s terrible."
Then don't speak up! Wow you don't need to be an employed reviewer to utter such useless shit...

Scott Foundas : "The only thing I want to say beyond what we’ve talked about is that people are always hot to talk about trends in Cannes, and I feel like trends are usually the invention of — [..] Magazine editors and people who are looking for some kind of an angle rather than just talking about the films. So I’m glad we mostly talked about the films. But, really culminating with the Haneke this morning, I have been struck by the intense physical quality of the films here in the competition. [..] This has really struck me as being a throughline through the films. The films themselves are quite visceral. [..] Also, I never buy the idea that there’s any theory to the programming of the festival. In Cannes, so much of how films are scheduled is about talent availability"
LOL. He's glad the conversation didn't fall into the topoi of Cannes coverage, BUT he makes sure to drag it there himself now. Yeah let's find a simplifying talking point to sum up the overall flavour of the competition, so we have something easy for our readers to digest, and we can later accuse some films for not respecting the annual trend or conversely to blame the festival for being a cardboard caricature of itself. Finally he declares that what he just said didn't make sense.




I notice that except for the cinematography in particular scenes (an opening scene in a bad film...), what they talk about is whether they like the subject matter chosen by the author, about the actors performances and plot points... And then they heckle the director, virtually screaming at the screen in their head. They argue with what is realist, how social behaviours should be in real life... as if these fictions were documentaries. That's a bit disappointing for art critics. They don't really talk about CINEMA, about the art of filmmaking, about depth and inspiration. That's what distinguishes the critics from reviewers, or "the men from the boys" (no offense intended to feminists, it's the saying).
I know it's only a stream-of-consciousness conversation, before the end of the festival... Fine. But these are seasoned reviewers... shouldn't we expect higher-standards from their "first impressions", just like they expect such "high standards" from this festival? Their nitpicking would be more credible if they held themselves to the same level of critical standards...

They are disappointed by these films... well, I'm disappointed by the level of their discourse.



Related :

04 mai 2012

Repeat Whiner (Koehler) Season 2 Episode 2



The log in the eye of the beholder
"Thursday’s announcement of the official selection for the upcoming Cannes Film Festival marks status quo in one area (the number of veteran auteurs in the competition) and a shift in another (a decline in the number of women in the lineup).
The lineup of 55 new films that will screen at the festival tends to reinforce the perception that the official selection side of the event—that which takes place in the beach town’s hulking Palais complex and is selected by artistic director Thierry Fremaux—is less the site of discoveries than where the established find reinforcement for their reputations. More open fields for discoveries can be expected, as is the Cannes pattern, over at the parallel, independent sections of Directors Fortnight and Critics Week [..]
In all of this, please note who’s missing: Women.
My colleague Eugene Hernandez compiled a tally of the number of women in the Cannes competition in recent years, and though the average is a bit over two names per year, the number in 2011 shot up dramatically to four, setting off headlines about Cannes’ year of the woman [..]"

Cannes 2012: Old Boys’ Network, in Status Quo (Robert Koehler; Film Comment; 22 April 2012)
How cute, pseudo-journalists who pretend to care for women's right and for newcomers by rehashing the same old mindless clichés plastered in the press EVERY fucking year before the festival even starts... How original!
Do they really CARE? Or is it just an opportunist posture to join the usual Cannes free bashing? Let's find out in their Year-End Top10 :


Robert Koehler top2011 (100% MALE / 30% VETERAN) he picks a male veteran as Best Director (Weerasethakul)
  1. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives MALE / VETERAN (Cannes2011)
  2. Mysteries of Lisbon MALE  / VETERAN (TIFF2010) 
  3. Agrarian Utopia MALE (Rotterdam2009)
  4. Margaret MALE 
  5. To Die Like a Man MALE (Cannes2009)
  6. Extraordinary Stories MALE 
  7. The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausescu MALE (Cannes2010)
  8. Take Shelter MALE (Sundance2011+Cannes2011)
  9. Poetry MALE  / VETERAN (Cannes2011)
  10. The Mouth of the Wolf MALE (Turin2009+Berlin2010) 

Eugene Hernandez top2011 (100% MALE / 50% VETERAN) he picks a male veteran as Best Director (Malick)
  1. The Tree of Life MALE  / VETERAN (Cannes2011) 
  2. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives MALE  / VETERAN (Cannes 2011)
  3. Mysteries of Lisbon MALE  / VETERAN  (TIFF2010) 
  4. Le quattro volte MALE (Cannes2010) 
  5. Hell and Back Again MALE (Sundance2011) 
  6. The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975 MALE (Berlin2011)
  7. Melancholia MALE  / VETERAN (Cannes2011)
  8. A Separation MALE  / VETERAN (Berlin2011) 
  9. Incendies MALE (Telluride2010) 
  10. Moneyball MALE (TIFF2011) 

Film Comment's Top 100 Films of the Decade 2000s (91% MALE)

Women : 9 mentions (9%)/ 6 filmmakers (Claire Denis*3, Agnès Varda, Kathryn Bigalow, Lucrecia Martel*2, Sofia Coppola, Catherine Breillat, Kelly Reichardt)

New Directors / New Films 2012 - Lincoln Film Center (86.2% MALE / 55% NON-DEBUT)
  • Women : 4/29 (13.8% not better than Cannes line up best years)
  • Debut : 13/29 (that sucks for a program that claims to feature NEW blood)
  • Actual world-first discoveries : 2/29 (that sucks for a program that claims to make DISCOVERIES)
  • Re-runs from international festivals : 25/29 (thank you foreign festivals for discovering new titles for our program)
  • Old film/Dead director (i.e. not NEW): 1 (brain fart?)


Thierry Fremaux makes the best of the 1719 submissions he received to select a representative list narrowed down to 22 titles (that's a reduction to a sample of 1.3% of all entries). 


Meanwhile American reviewers only watch (at best if they do their job right) 400 NEW films a year (only 607 titles of the 5500 films made in the world, were released on the North-American market in 2011) and narrow them down to a top10 (a reduction to a 2.5% sample of all entries) without leaving a single spot for WOMEN!!!! How ironic that last year Cannes had 4/20 women on its line-up (that's 20%!!!) and on the same year, these 2 smartass (occasional) feminists put 0% of women on their top10... Why am I the only one to find this self-condradictory???
So basically, douchebags are pretty good at pointing finger at a foreign festival, but they wouldn't even reframe this in a more global context (the effective minority of female-filmmakers anywhere in the world), or a more personal perspective (they don't do what they blame others for not doing). That's braindead "criticism" for you.

The issue of gender parity in the workplace (the glass ceiling for female directors) needs to be dealt with at the root, upstream, when the job of a filmmaker starts. By looking at how many female directors are given money to make films, and how well supported they are during production, or how they face constant discrimination, exclusion, mistrust, hindrance in their work... And even before that at the university stage : how many female students choose to enroll for a film class and how many graduate?
Because when a film is picked up in Cannes, all is done and said, it's the final stage of a film production (right before distribution), it's downstream from the glass ceiling. Cannes may only select films that have been made and finished. If there are only 10% or less of films made in the world every year by women... it would be hard for Cannes to select more than 10% of women films (statistically assuming that male and female filmmakers are just equally deserving to be selected on a world-class festival in comparable proportion). If you expect Cannes to line up 50% of male films and 50% of female films... that means that the smaller sample of films made by women is much superior in quality than the majority of films made by men. We could do that (an exact gender parity) as a symbolic gesture (positive discrimination, affirmative action), to help restore the balance over time, hopefully. But it won't make a competition of the highest standards, which is what Cannes is looking for. It's an uphill battle for women filmmakers of course, but Cannes is not responsible for this discrimination, Cannes only reflects le fait accompli (a world that dominantly gives film projects in the hands of men).
It would be much more ingenious to look at the gender statistics of the Cannes Cinéfondation that welcomes debuting filmmakers each year.For that we could hold the festival responsible for encouraging gender discrimination, not for the competition itself.

"Festival selections are no places, nor should they be, for quotas of any sort. But Cannes is a place, maybe the place, where the cinema and festivals worlds take their temperature every year, to gauge the state of the art, for better or worse. Those of us who’ve argued that Cannes’ hothouse atmosphere isn’t a proper place to do this—indeed, perhaps the worst place to do this—have long ago lost the battle. Cannes is pretty much the center of our (local) universe, and is allowed to define standards and tendencies from there. [..]
So, given this set of facts on the ground, does the absence of women this year (only the third time in the past thirteen years) say anything about where cinema is right now? Unlikely. More likely, it’s a matter of (bad) timing, or, less likely, bad candidates. Besides, women are winning elsewhere on the festival circuit."  
Only after laying random unexamined uncontextualized facts for the benefit of a sensationalist bashing, does he conclude that it wasn't such a smart idea to go down this route... However, the diffamation is already done : making a catchy headline to manipulate his readership, and stuffing the whole first half of his article with useless and deceptive misinformation. That's exemplary of bad journalism, which cares more about (hollow) effects than about insightful education. With "journalists" who care this little about setting high standards for film journalism, it explains a lot about the dire straits of American Film Culture... That's what I call a douchebag culture.


As for the veterans, without them there would be no continuity in the establishment of world-class critical standards. If you renew every year your line-up, as a principle, you imply that filmmakers can only be at the level of an international competition only once in their career. And by discarding the winners of past competitions, you deprive yourself of the artists who proved to have top-notch talent, thus falling back on others, possibly lesser, artists to give them their moment of fame, even if they aren't as good as the veterans.
Committing a certain fidelity to competition veterans is not only a political strategy (to bank on acquired fame rather than risking an uncertain/controversial newcomer) that any event should consider for its perennity (that's a superficial and self-serving but necessary consideration), but most importantly it acknowledges the fact that past winners were not a fluke, a passing fancy, but the recognition of a solid talent capable to produce masterpieces over and over (that may compete with the year's best, every time they make a new film). If film masters keeping being as good as when they emerged in Cannes, there is no reason to ignore their new films.

Complaining about the recurrence of well-known names on a line-up of a world-class competition is a blatant misunderstanding of how the art market works. Would you get tired of Mozart after hearing him ranking in the charts more than 5 years in a row? So you think Van Gogh only painted one award-worthy painting and all the others are just repeating themselves? Shakespeare should only be praised for one of his play, more than that and he overstayed his welcome... right? What a lot of bullshit! Besides a festival cannot be judged on 2 consecutive years. The evolution of the history of art only makes sense when looking back, with a critical distance of time, on several years, or many decades.


Blaming the official competition for not doing what the parallel sections are doing is also pretty stupid. It's like blaming the Best Actor category for not rewarding as many women as the Best Actress award! All the sections of the Cannes festival (even the ones not organised by the official direction) function as a symbiotic system. If the International Critics Week (self-described as the competition for DEBUT and Second-film!!!) was redundant with an official competition lining up too many debuts, then it would die out and be cancelled. The reason Un Certain Regard spawn out of the main competition line up, is precisely to shine a spotlight on a supplementary batch of films that could not make it in the official competition, often times because they are too unpolished (less professional, not quite at world-class standard) or disconcerting (subversive/experimental).
If Cannes DOES create space for Un Certain Regard, La Quinzaine des Réalisateurs and the International Critics Week... it is precisely to give different films their own characteristic competition, not to run 4 copycat line-up which enroll films according to the same standard, the same criterion, the same range, the same flavour... Who are these idiots who would like all festivals, all line-ups to be ONE SIZE FITS ALL, ANYWHERE, ALL THE TIME???
Cannes wants to get 4 distinctive line-ups!!!! If you crave for DEBUT films, go to the SiC that's the section taking care of this category!!!


Related: