Friday, May 22, 2009

More From Cannes: Imelda, Penélope, Brad, Palme D'Or Frontrunners

I'm so far behind on the Cannes coverage! The festival wraps on Sunday. So, without further ado some red carpet beauties and some links to get you caught up if you haven't been online much or were trusting me to bring you the best bits ...so sorry to have kept you waiting.


First up is Imelda Staunton at the photocall for Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock. There was some very very early Oscar buzz for Imelda for her comic portrayal of Dimitri Martin's mom. Rosengje wasn't sold, writing...
I think people are going to be very divided about Imelda Staunton. It was a technically perfect performance and likely imitated the real life counterpart, but the character is written as too much of a caricature. Excluding one great scene involving some.. special brownies she is excessively shrill.
Saïd Taghmaoui, all in white, attended the Vengeance premiere. I feel like I haven't seen him in a movie in forever but I like him. Next up for Saïd is G.I. Joe: The Rise of the Cobra. Kristin Scott Thomas remains a classy red carpet must have. Michelle Yeoh and Kerry Washington, two undervalued actresses that we've always loved here at the Experience, have both been valiantly working the charity circuit at Cannes.

Kerry's getting muscled out of this picture by Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie, mega-stars (heyyyy, just like she was in Mr. & Mrs. Smith. You're entirely forgiven if you didn't realize Kerry was in that movie. She barely is). Brad was in Cannes for Inglourious Basterds which seems to have a left a lot of people underwhelmed.

All Cannes! All the Time!
Go Fug Yourself salutes Penélope's game face after her food poisoning this week.
Eating the Sun Lots of Philippines upset abotu Roger Ebert's 'worst film ever' comments about Brillant Mendoza's Kinatay
IndieWire on why Cannes still matters
Living in Cinema is jazzed for the new Tsai Ming-Liang film Face. The early stills and the trailer do look like pure eye candy.
NY Post Did you know that Antichrist's end credits cite a "misogyny consultant" Ha! Lars Von Trier continually delights me... and I don't even need to see his movies (not that I don't -- love them, too) for this delight to take place. But then, I've always had a thing for artists who loved to push buttons just to be pushing them and/or to mock themselves or have fun with perceptions of their persona. Madonna used to be in this camp, too.
Twitch rumor has it: Universal is going to ask Tarantino to trim Inglourious Basterds down after the mixed reaction at Cannes. Hey, a little trim probably wouldn't hurt most QT movies.
Getty points to the trend for the red carpet at Cannes and elsewhere: nude (coloring that is)
Obsessed With Film enthusiastically offers 5 reasons to see Sam Raimi's Drag Me to Hell
IndieWire Director's Fortnight winners... a big night for the Quebecois film I Killed My Mother
My New Plaid Pants is waiting impatiently for each new bit on Michael Haneke's The White Ribbon
Risky Business thinks that Haneke's film is going to win the Palme D'Or.

Will these two films be the big winners?

As to who might win... Haneke seems like a good bet but it's not the only film that's been wowing them. Others are saying Jacques Audiard's Un Prophete could take it. (If you don't recognize the name just think of the lively, tense French hits The Beat That My Heart Skipped and Read My Lips... both of which did well in their US runs). But remember Cannes watchers... no one knows anything. The winners are never exactly predictable. This ain't the Oscars. It's a juried competition where they're encouraged to spread the wealth. No one knows who might win what... except maybe Isabelle Huppert.
*

13 comments:

Wayne B. said...

Weren't people underwhelmed by "Jackie Brown" when it premiered? Now its practically a classic, hopefully "Inglorious Basterds" will be the same.

Kyle R said...

Tarantino's movies have never been meant to appeal to the majority. Some people understand the art, some people would rather watch crappy studio made movies with common themes and universal plots. I personally cannot wait until I see this movie. Tarantino has not let me down up until this point, and I don't think it will start with this movie. Only time will tell.

NATHANIEL R said...

Kyle R

i'd argue that Tarantino is a mainstream filmmaker. A great one.

but even people who like his work aren't saying the nicest things.

Flosh said...

I hope Anti-christ wins an award, just to see the crowd reaction.

Fox said...

I don't know what Kristen Scott Thomas is at Cannes with, but I doubt it's this: Easy Virtue.

Anyways, what I'm getting at is I thought KST was great last year in everything she was in, and she looks fantastic in the preview for Easy Virtue. I can't wait to see it b/c of her. Oh, and JT's girlfriend looks dead adorable in it as well!

Special Pantys of a Housewive said...

I hope Haneke wins the Palme d'Or.

Colin said...

@Kyle R: Tarantino's detractors can be split into two main camps: 1) Those who decry their excessive violence, pop-culture riffs, stylized dialog, the cascade of Style over substance, etc., and 2) Those who decry their bloat and dreary running times.

I'd argue against those in the first camp, not least because his films have always been careful to enact the consequences of violence (which is why the Style-over-substance assertion doesn't hold in my regard).

But lately most negative criticism over Tarantino's work has hailed from the second camp, because it's grown harder for him to discern the brilliant from the boring. It's deeply disingenuous to say that the alternative to undisciplined Tarantino is "crappy studio made movies with common themes and universal plots". Wrong. For the second camp, the alternative is good Tarantino, the sort of movies that he made when he first blazed onto the Hollywood scene.

Agent69 said...

I'm hoping Haneke wins, too.

Kamikaze Camel said...

Wayne, it is true that Jackie Brown is regarded of with much more fondness than it was. Being an original lover of it (I did and always have said that it's better than Pulp Fiction) it's been nice to see.

Michael W. said...

I think there will be some raised eye brows if Huppert gives the Palme to Haneke. He could deserve it though but I bet people who doesn't like the film very much will question it.

Actually here in Denmark the Danish critics have been very mixed on The White Ribbon. Two calls it a Palme candidate but the rest are more mixed.

The highest rated film from the Danish critics is Andrea Arnolds Fish Tank. No. 2 i Antichrist (it received GREAT reviews when it opened in Denmark this week. I don't agree. It's a really good film and far from as extreme as the reaction in Cannes indicates but several well known critis here has called it a masterpiece) and A Prophet is no. 3. Enter the Void and Spring Fever is bottom.

But I have no idea who will win :D

Robert said...

I have also heard mixed things about The White Ribbon (though that doesn't mean it won't win).

Vincere I've heard bandied about with the term "front runner."

Alain Resnains' Wild Grass has gotten a fairly positive response.

A Prophet, as you say sounds possible.

And we're still waiting on the last day entries like Face (my most anticipated).

Robert said...

My Palme d'Or predix, in order of likelihood. Based on a variety of factors.

1. A Prophet
2. Wild Grass
3. The White Ribbon
4. Vincere
5. In the Beginning
6. Bright Star
7. Antichrist
8. The Time That Remains
9. Fish Tank
10. Looking for Eric
11. Map of the Sounds of Tokyo
12. Broken Embraces
13. Vengeance
14. Inglorious Basterds
15. Thirst
16. Spring Fever
17. Taking Woodstock
18. Face
19. Enter the Void
20. Kinatay

Anonymous said...

I challenge Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie to spend those obscene reserves held by their 'Jolie-Pitt' Foundation on legitimate efficient 'humanitarian' work or turn the funds over to others who will. To date, they have taken in $22,000,000 on the sale of baby photos alone, another 6 or 7 figures from other sources, and spent or granted only a fraction of that on 'humanitarian' work or 'good will' of any kind. The rest so far, has been spent on PR campaigns, plane rides, and super-high end accomodations for Brad and Angie in exotic locations around the world. I challenge them to meet the criteria of a legitimate charity, operate with a reasonable overhead, open their books to prove it, and get their 'foundation' worthy of a decent rating by ANY independent watchdog like Charitywatch.org. Otherwise, to stop selling baby photos for 'charity' and stop seeking publicity for donations made in their own name to their own foundation/travel/PR firm shortly before or after the premier of their latest film or DVD release. I challenge Brad Pitt to do the same with his 'Make it right' Foundation. Which to date, has not met the criteria of a legitimate charity or been given a decent rating by ANY independent charity watchdog. Otherwise, to stop competing with 'Habitat for Humanity' for PR, credit, kudos, and funding. Who by the way have been building homes for the less fortunate in every major city including New Orleans for decades. 'Habitat for Humanity' has been 'Top Rated' for years by charitywatch.org and others. They operate with a low overhead, volunteer workforce, and donated materials. No similar effort can match their progress hour for hour or dollar for dollar. They don't even come close. Unlike 'Make it right', the homes built by 'Habitat' don't just sit there vacant. They don't exclude by cost, lower income families. They are allocated and built specifically for the less fortunate who take part in the building process and move in immediately upon completion. 'Habitat' works in every major city including New Orleans. It puts 'Make it right' to shame. In fact, hundreds of legitimate charities have been given good-excellent ratings by Charitywatch.org and other independent watchdog groups. By contrast, the vast, overwhelming majority of celebrity 'foundations' have been rated poorly, fair, or not rated at all. They are inneficient, corrupt, focus heavily on PR, and operate with shady, self-serving, misleading accounting practices. They usually don't even meet the criteria of a legitimate charity. Still, they have the nerve to self-audit, self-praise, mislead the donor/fan base, seek funding from a number of sources including ordinary people, compete with legitimate charities, and cash in on maximum PR worldwide for their inefficient 'humanitarian' efforts. Its not right.