Does Cannes Matter – Mid-Fest Discussion
Eugene Hernandez wrote a passionate piece about Cannes mattering, based on the level of passion around Von Trier’s Anti-Christ.
But I propose that Eugene both makes the main case for the fest… and exposes the growing irrelevance and self-obsession of the fest and those who cover it like it was the last Coca Cola in the desert.
Yes, the ground shook as the great modern shit stirrer took his best shot and ended up with people on both ends of the spectrum in response. But the notion that, “In the case of the Von Trier film, it seems more marketable 24 hours after its first screening than many would have assumed in wake of the first screening on Sunday night,” it might seem it from there. And cineastes are all aflutter. Personally, I can’t wait to see it. Well… I can wait. And will.
Last time we heard this outrage? Dogville. A seriously controversial film that, for many of us, was much, much, much better than the Cannes squealing suggested.. that did $1.5 million in the US… with Nicole Kidman a year off her Oscar win, a big push for Cold Mountain and as much box office clout as she ever had. 150,000 people.
So does it matter?
I’m not saying it should die an immediate death or that the event has no value. That’s too big a swing. My question is, “What if Cannes didn’t exist?”
And that answer is… Tribeca would become Cannes or LAFF could become Cannes or some such thing. And what “Cannes” is in that scenario is “the middle festival.” Sundance kicks off American indies in January. Berlin, more muscular every year, gets a lot of business done right after.
Then, it’s the Venice/Telluride/Toronto run.
Cannes is the muscle in the middle.
But on what planet do we really believe that Cannes carries a mystical weight greater than filmmakers’ willingness to target the festival as their release date of preference? Same as Sundance… same as Toronto… same as Berlin and Venice.
If you build it, they will come.
Of course, you don’t have to rebuild. Cannes doesn’t need to be knocked down… just kept in perspective.
Eugene is not just sucking back Kool-Aid. He writes, “Twelve days of moviegoing and movie business in the South of France is a particularly priviledged assignment, particularly in a period when so many people have lost jobs, seen companies downsize or disappear altogether. Those of us who are lucky enough to be here for Cannes #62 are getting a preview of what
Soooo….your point is no festival really “matters” because some other festival will just take it’s place should it go away? That seems trite and bland.
If anything the festival circuit has been able to create itself around a brand. The lineup at this years Cannes is quintessential Cannes. Gondry, Haneke, von Trier, Noe for all the cinephiles and that foreign market, which judging by the post, matters not. Then you get meaty stuff like “Up” and the Tarantino and other big films that get to premiere overseas before being rolled out here.
The brand thing is an issue for Sundance because they’ve lost their brand (which could prove useful under Cooper and Groth…they’re at square one with a big ole room to toy with) and Tribeca which never had a brand and desperately needs one. But to say if Cannes went away LAFF or Tribeca or Lex G’s BonerFest would take it’s place seems reallllly dismissive and silly.
Festivals are built over time. It’s not like you just put one on and all the heavy hitters show up.
It sounds like this conversation could be extrapolated out slightly to ask “does art cinema matter” with the same possible answer based on box-office grosses.
And yeah, if that’s all we’re measuring. But then that leads to other questions.
Mojo has Star Trek winning Saturday and Sunday.
Poland’s really not kidding when he talks about doing the heavy lifting. It takes some effort to keep proving, day in and day out, that there really is no bore like a pompous, self-important bore.
Wait, can’t forget “humorless…”
I don’t think you can judge the importance of Cannes solely, or even primarily, on the basis of what it means to US ticketbuyers. It’s always been my impression that, for all the attention it gets in some US outlets, this is a European-centric festival above all else. Indeed, back in the day when I attended, I was repeatedly told by publicists that people associated with US movies were there primarily to do foreign press, and would get around to US press closer to US opening dates. There were, naturally, exceptions to this “rule.” But, by and large, I found Cannes (at least back when I covered it for the Houston Post) to be a place where I more likely would get a crack at European filmmakers and actors. Not that I minded, you understand. It was hard to complain when I got long one-on-ones with the likes of Roman Polanski, Dirk Bogarde, Klaus Maria Brandauer, Philippe Noiret, Bertrand Tavernier, etc. On the other hand, I will admit: When we had a budget crunch, and I had to choose between Cannes and Toronto, it took me about three seconds to pick the latter. Yeah, I had to be honest: I got a lot more mainstream stuff in Toronto. But I made the decision strictly from the standpoint of being a US journalist.
“I can only answer the question with a question… To whom?”
That’s easy: To anyone who cares about movies as something more than just a way to kill two hours on the weekend.
Think of it this way: If someone said you could be transported to Cannes right now to partake of what’s left of the festival, all expenses paid – in other words, if it wasn’t primarily a financial decision – would you even have to think about it?
I kind of always saw Cannes as the international art prize equivalent to the Oscars’ Hollywood back pat.
Movies that do well at Cannes don’t do well at the Oscars. And Oscar movies would mostly be considered jokes at Cannes.
Cannes is to movies as inside-the-Beltway is to politics.
Glenn Kenny, are we having pot, kettle, or mirror issues?
Does Cannes matter?
The Child – $0.7 million
The Wind That Shakes the Barley – $1.8 million
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days – $1.2 million
The Class – $3.7 million
No.
4 great movies (okay, 3 great and one – Barley – good).
What exactly are we saying the meaning of ‘matter’ is?
Again: Matter to who?
Matter – to the investors?
You bring a film to Cannes for exposure, and horror upon horrors, to make money. I’m too lazy to go into international numbers, but the promotional money spent in France over the past four years has not translated into profit for the winners.
If you think the movies were great – hey, they would have been great without Cannes. The festival didn’t add any value to them.
I have a pretty solid feeling that a movie like 4,3,2 wouldn’t have been as successful as it was without a Palme under its belt. $1.2 million for a bleak Romanian abortion movie is not bad money at all.
Cannes is all about trying to shock the jaded international movie snobs who attend. The latest Hanake or Noe or van Trier? Humilation, gore, degradation. All the Cannes critics can get their panties in a bundle, rush off to write their angry Missives From Cannes and expense dinner. It’s what they love and live for, but has little to do with the love of film.
Yeah, it matters; they’re plotting our future:
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/87406444/Getty-Images-Entertainment
That’s not Happy Buddah, that’s Roger Friedman, pre-announcement.
Slow night on your site Glenn?
The BEST festival movies are the ones that make journos, paparazzi, bloggers, fans…everyone shake their heads and crap their pants and said “what the hell!?!?!” Not to be the defender of Cannes, but more power to them for not bowing to the PC police and programming standard, crappy festival stuff.
Is that really all you have to bring to the conversation, Glenn? It’s all about me? That’s what all your years of work have come to, sitting on the edge of the playground, smoking one of your mom’s cigarettes and sneering at the kids who offend you by socializing?
Did I miss the moment at which I kicked dirt on your comfy chair at Premiere?
Or are you just professional feud trolling?
Tell you what… you are just so right… and I am just so wrong, about everything.
Feel better now?
Don: The first year I attended Cannes, the grand prize winner was When Father Was Away on Business. When they announced the title in the press room, I immediately felt like a doofus, because I’d somehow managed to miss all sceenings of the movie. But then I realized that just about everyone seated around me — not just US press; just about everyone, period — had the same reaction: What the fuck? If memory serves me correct, the only person in the room — well, OK, the only person I knew in the room — who had actually seen the movie was David Kehr. And, bless his heart, he was kind enough to give anyone who asked for it a brief plot description of the movie, so we could file our stories.
Joe-
I know I’ve said it before but I SWEAR the only journos who saw (or at least REVIEWED) “Frozen River” at Sundance the year it won were me and Scott Macauley. While everyone was off seeing the movies that would be the next Little Miss Reservoir Dynamite or mega-indies to hit the multiplex come spring, I was wading through crap to find a gem like “Frozen River.” You know as well as I do, fests are a total crap shoot.
I guess what I was getting at was the best fest movies are the ones people flock to see then just flip out (pro or con) about after. Those make me want to stay in the review game. Stuff like “Tarnation” or the God-awful “Tiptoes” make this game fun and they keep you on your toes.
I also like the West Coast/ East Coast blogger feud that’s been simmering for a while. I’m gonna go after Karina Longworth next!! West COooooooast!!!! CAP! CAP! CAP!!
“Yes… and no. It is a very specific, very limited view. One or two films at the fest will have an impact beyond the cineaste community in this country.”
Depends on the perspective, and what you see as important. Is there value in a critic attending a festival and seeing (and writing about) a slew of largely Euro-centric art films? I would say that, if you’re interested in the idea of promoting cinema and discussing film as art, yes, absolutely. The value that indieWIRE brings to covering fests is obvious; they bring coverage of lots of obscure film fests, and their brand is built on indie film. But I would argue that the value of a site with a broader audience (Cinematical, for instance) in covering Cannes was, in part, in reaching a wide array of readers who might otherwise never have even heard of some of those films. Covering fests for Cinematical I was surprised, often, by some of the feedback from more mainstream readers who found unexpected value in reading our fest coverage.
“But does it matter?” and “To Whom?”
Does art “matter?” Does culture “matter?” Does it matter to strive for excellence in art, to showcase film in its range of amazing diversity, good, bad and ugly, in an enviroment like Cannes? Jesus. If it doesn’t matter, we (and by “we” I mean we, collectively, as film journalists and film critics) might as well not bother covering smaller films at all and just focus on covering the big Hollywood films that are going to have an impact at the box office in middle America. We should just let numbers dictate whether a film, or an array of particular films, is important or not. To hell with arthouse cinema, who really cares about that highbrow shit besides film snobs, right?
For that matter, to whom does ANY art matter? To whom does theater matter, besides NYC theater snobs and the occasional West Coaster who does a yearly trip to NY to enjoy the theater there? To whom does good wine really matter, but a wine enthusiast? To whom does ANYTHING that aims higher than the median person’s interest level matter? I would argue: to everyone, even if — perhaps especially if — they don’t think it does.
We tend to have such an overtly American view of what “matters,” what’s important. If it doesn’t matter outside the cineaste community in this country,it just isn’t terribly relevant? I don’t think this is what you’re really intending to say, David, but I think we need to differentiate here between the financial feasibility (or even the business necessity) of film sites and newspapers covering Cannes versus the inherent intellectual and artistic value of the fest itself and of journalists covering the fest, regardless of how many sales are actually made there.
And Joe … while I certainly understand making the choice to cover Toronto instead of Cannes as a US journalist, from a purely critical and artistic value standpoint I will take Cannes any day over Toronto, though the latter certainly has its value as well.
Don: It’s funny: Because Variety tries to cover so much at the major festivals, and because I’ve been lucky enough to be on the Variety team of reviewers several times at Sundance, SXSW, Berlin, Toronto, Montreal, etc., it’s been my good fortune to review the first movies of people like Paul Thomas Anderson, M. Night Shyamalan, Alejandro Amenabar and others. I even managed to be one of the first critics to single out actors like Brad Pitt and George Clooney and Renee Zellweger. But the flip side is that — like you, I’ll bet — I’ve also seen a lot of very good (and even a few great) movies that, despite my Variety reviews, never went anywhere, not even cable, and apparently vanished from the face of the earth. Right now, I’m telling everyone I know to check out That Evening Sun, if only to see a Hal Holbrook performance that deserves an Oscar. But you know what? I’m afraid that this is a movie that most people — yeah, maybe even most people on this blog — won’t take time for. Such is life. As I’m sure you’ve discovered by now, you could save yourself a lot of pain if you didn’t care so much. But you do, so you don’t.
Don… I think I somehow headed you down an in accurate track about exactly what I think. But I have been trying to express it, in response to you, for about an hour and I still feel it’s inadequate.
No… I don’t think the fact that Cannes could be replaced is reason to replace it or to see it as less valuable.
More tomorrow…
Kim: Please don’t misunderstand — if I could have, I would have covered both Cannes and Toronto. But for a variety of practical reasons — not least of which being press-friendliness — I still would pick Toronto 10 days out of ten.
Kim… a bit easy to turn it into a “does art matter?” discussion.
Of course it matters to almost everyone who reads this blog. And of course it matters to our culture. But critics writing about films and those films being show to real people are not the same thing.
I would make the argument – and eventually will – that art is often damaged by the 3-headed monster of film festivals in recent years. They have helped make distributors and most film journalists, btw) timid and lazy. And they create a black or white atmosphere around the films for which that kind of thinking is the least appropriate.
And while the programming is very strong, they start with a huge, built-in edge. Is inviting Gondry, Haneke, von Trier, Noe, Almodovar, Tarantino, Amenabar, etc a hard call? Cannes suffers, as does Sundance, from success and having so many fest veterans than the real cutting edge is not cut nearly as often anymore.
How can you put Cannes so far over Toronto when all the same films that are in Cannes are in Toronto and more? What is the significantly greater value in Cannes to you, other than “first?” As a journalist, how is a festival at which you see films of which 80% will never be offered to your readers to be seen so much better than one in which 80% of your criticism can be of quality films that you know will be offered to your readers for their viewing? Who’s film love are you serving first?
Does it best serve the filmic arts as a whole to have 3 huge festivals at which most “important” premieres take place (I’ll hold the very real value of Berlin, amongst a few others, to the side for the moment) or might it actually be wiser to spread it out… not to LexFest, but to the other high-quality, large-sized fests around the world?
Finally, does this one fest matter enough to US film lovers to eat the budget at any given outlet that might be spent on 3 or 4 domestic festivals that are now not covered at all? How many freelancers across the globe are having their incomes sliced by Variety right now because, in part, Variety so heavily prioritizes these three festivals (at which they are also cutting back).
indieWIRE and Cinematical and others have been pretty fest-aggressive for a long time. I’m not really talking about them. They do work to spread it out. But the bigger the paper, the narrower the focus.
The problem with these conversations is that they turn into debates, where everything is on one side or the other. I am not anti-Cannes. I just don’t see it as a hugely important festival to America, though it is covered (and funded) like it is. It is hugely important to to the art film scene because aside from American Indie, it is where every one of those filmmakers wants to play. But is that Cannes or the lack of alternative that feels as valuable? Will Sundance ever actually launch a foreign language film of importance? And can the non-US indie world afford to indulge itself in allowing one 10-day orgy to define the entire world’s product anymore when export is so much easier than it used to be?
Jeff, I’d argue that a movie like 4 Months… wouldn’t have even received a release at all. And if it did it’d be in one NY cinema at best. When directors like Mungui become important and vital names in cinema years into the future we’ll still be asking “does Cannes matter” and the same arguments will be thrown up.
Nothing makes me sadder than “does Cannes matter?” questions. Why can’t Cannes matter? Because it’s not Toronto and hasn’t been designed and moulded to become an Oscar platform? Because it’s not a festival that you’re privy to attending unlike, oh, San Fransisco or that one in the Caribbean you always go to? All these festivals serve different purposes and audiences and are as important as each other, but Cannes gives cinema a big prestigious feel. No other festival gets daily coverage in almost every newspaper you can find (even ones that can’t send a journo over seem to have something in one way or another about Cannes). People who don’t even follow cinema know Cannes. You’d be hard-pressed to find someone outside of film obsessed circles who particularly knows about Berlinale or, outside of North America, Toronto.
I have my issues with Cannes (too many familiar faces getting default inclusions into the main competition), but I can’t imagine what it’d be like without it. We’d still have Toronto and Berlin, but… Cannes is like the Oscars to the Golden Globes. There are other awards shows just like there are other festivals, but that’s the one that people wanna be at and such.
And of the four films that Josh listed, the one with the highest ratio of domestic to international box office is The Class, which made 14% of it’s take in the US. The others are all around 9/10/11%.
Let us imagine you are reading the sports section of your local paper, and the coverage of the evening’s games record which team sold more merchandise, whether hotdogs outsold chicken fingers and if the parking lot turned more of a profit now that it’s using new automated ticket-machines instead of human staff at the exits. And nothing about great plays, exciting moments, the historic feud the game represented the newest round of, the feel of the crowd or the narative of the season as it works to wards the championships, let alone the score.
And yet, in much film coverage, writing about money-money-money supersedes writing about story, art and joy for a lot of people. Some people do business coverage superbly, and it does have an important part in the whole of the equation, but talking at great length about profit and loss can show one’s cards as to whether you love the craft of writing about the art of movies or love the buzz of writing about the business of them. To paraphrase Tom Stoppard, if reason and utility the only things that we lived our lives by, we’d all be growing soybeans.
Just want to quickly defend Dogville, Lions Gate probably wanted to court some controversy to drum up some marketing and increase awareness. But the film premiered within a month of Passion of the Christ which was the only movie related item that was talked about for about four months.
but to answer your question Cannes does matter, at least to me. I find myself making must see wish lists from the Cannes contenders much more often than with EW’s big summer preview. It doesn’t matter if the movies don’t play in Peoria.
“How can you put Cannes so far over Toronto when all the same films that are in Cannes are in Toronto and more? What is the significantly greater value in Cannes to you, other than “first?” As a journalist, how is a festival at which you see films of which 80% will never be offered to your readers to be seen so much better than one in which 80% of your criticism can be of quality films that you know will be offered to your readers for their viewing? Who’s film love are you serving first?”
It’s not always just a matter of “first.” Yes, many (certainly not all) of the fims that show at Cannes will also show at Toronto. There’s a time constraint at any festival as to how many films you can see over 10 or 12 days. Depending on factors like fest screening schedules, doing interviews, and whatever regular production work has to also be done within the same time frame, I can maybe cover 20-30 films at a festival. And at Toronto, as we all heard a lot of last year, they expect journalists to cover the Canadian films as much as possible. I heard from a lot of folks at that fest last year about folks who either didn’t get accred at all or had to fight to get it, even if they’d been covering TIFF for years, because the fest didn’t feel they’d covered “enough” Canadian film in the past. At Cinematical last year, we had to adjust our slate of planned coverage to ensure that we covered more Canadian film because of this. So knock off several slots of time to cover films that might be important just for making sure you’ve covered some of the Canadian stuff that’s on the slate.
If I’ve already seen the 20 or so films Toronto slates from Cannes, that frees my time at Toronto up to cover 20 or so other films that didn’t, any one of which might be a discovery on its own. At any fest, you have to sift (and sit through) a lot of shit to uncover the few true gems. The more films I sift through in a given year, the more likely I am to stumble upon something that’s really worth advocating. If I’m focusing a certain percentage of my Toronto energy on Canadian film, and a larger chunk on films I missed seeing at Cannes, that leaves very little room for actually seeing anything exciting that actually is premiering at Toronto and, by odds alone, makes it less likely that any of those films might actually be fantastic.
And I would argue that premiering at Cannes can and does make a real difference to some films — the Mungui is a good example, as is The Class. Seeing Che at Cannes was phenomenal, for both the experience of seeing that particular film at that particular fest and the inherent value of the discussions of the film over drinks with a wide array of cinema lovers immediately after. Discussion seethed and boiled over both the film itself and whether it could ever be distributed, and if so whether it should be cut into one shorter film or seen just as we saw it there — two films, back-to-back, pitched as a film “experience” rather than just a movie.
Further, on a site like MCN that has such a large percentage of industry readership, we aren’t necessarily writing for the masses as a site like Cinematical is. Sure, there are readers here from Iowa who might never get to see some of these films outside of DVD or taking a trip to NYC to take in some arthouse films, but I’d bet there are more readers here who live in NY or LA and work in the business. And for some of those folks, the buzz about a particular film that starts at Cannes might just end up making the difference between that film being one of the few lucky enough to actually get picked up for distrib, or not. Will that happen this year with the Von Triers or some other film? Maybe. For a lot of those arthouse films, that buzz starts percolating at Cannes and then builds as certain films bubble up from Cannes to be selected for Telluride’s exclusive slate and the larger, less discrete slate at Toronto. And it’s the culimination of that buzz that might very well end up making a difference between a film being talked about and even seen, or not.
Does it really matter if 80 or 90% of American audiences never saw or cared about 4, 3, 2 or Che or Hunger? Does that in any way take away from the artistic achievements of those films as films? I don’t think so.
Cinematical, by the way, is not at Cannes this year, although I’m sure the editorial team fought the good fight with AOL to keep covering that fest. Now that it’s not in their travel budget this year, it will be harder for them to cover it in the future, and that loss of coverage saddens me.
I think Kam makes a good point about the general awareness of Cannes that’s less true of Sundance and Toronto. Folks in my non-film biz circle (in particular, people who are film lovers who go out of their way to read coverage about “artsy” films) all know about Cannes and perceive it to be an “important” fest. When I’ve mentioned Toronto to the same people, many of them aren’t even aware that fest exists, much less that it might be important.
And James, good analogy, and couldn’t agree with you more on this topic (though of course that won’t surprise you).
David is into math, not art.
I saw Rambo last night. This movie needs to become a midnight cult movie. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen.
The carnage is so severe it approaches the level of satire. It’s as if Stallone set out to make a steroided-up 90-minute version of the Billy Boy scene from A Clockwork Orange.
I just sat there with a dropped jaw. Stick figure plotting and character development beefed up by innumerable graphic beheadings, disembowelments, limbs hacked off, blown off, heads shot, women raped, bodies blown to pieces by land mines. Even a Claymore somehow denotes as if it was Castle: Bravo.
If Rambo played at Cannes and Lars von Trier’s name was on it, it would be hailed as art.
“If Rambo played at Cannes and Lars von Trier’s name was on it, it would be hailed as art.”
No, it wouldn’t.
Rambo is art.
I think these are all good points about the fests and David, I too think I was misconstruing what you said or meant. But I also thought the initial post seemed dismissive of Cannes and that just seems….silly. It’s an exciting fest for hardcore fans of movies and it piques the interest of regular film fans as well. It’s earned that right. Just like Sundance has.
The thing I used to love about working for Film Threat was, we’d get 3-4 writers out to Sundance and just see 3-4 movies a day. We’d pretty much cover EVERY movie and no other site was doing that. And although I was glad I saw “Frozen River,” it certainly didn’t make up for the probably 400 other movies I’ve seen there over the years that never did anything ever again…and sucked to boot. But…
FT could recycle those reviews for the rest of the festival circuit and we could send 1 writer out to geographically close locations (to them) to pick up the slack. Lets face it, most films that play Sundance or Toronto end up at most other mid-level to large festivals and circulate throughout the year with some other stuff thrown in. Then SXSW throws some new titles in the mix and that’s what, 3/4 of the titles that end up at the other fests?
My point is, why don’t more sites, you know, review movies at film festivals? I dunno. Some arbiter of buzz anoints 3-4 under the radar films the buzzworthy ones, everyone falls all over themselves to cover them and some great stuff gets missed along the way. Meanwhile other people race all over Park City trying to see what movie sold for how much and where the top secret condo party is while movies just roll on and on and on…
Maybe I just don’t realize when David is (primarily) only writing for an American audience, being European myself, but to me there seems to be a major difference between the proposition in the original post – “Cannes doesn’t really matter” – and the conclusion in his later comment that “Cannes doesnt really matter “in the US”.
Here in Europe, Cannes really seems to be the most important festival of the year. One obvious reason for this is that for most European media (disclaimer: I am not involved in the film or film writing industry by any means, so I’m merely speculating based on my observations), it is easier and cheaper to send people to Cannes than to Toronto. Therefore, for most European film media (who dont have the clout to get major one-on-one interviews on a regular basis), this really is the most important week(s) of the year.
Also, while Cannes may not matter much to a Tarantino-film, it can matter helluva lot to a small Romanian film like 4,3,2, which almost certanly would never have opened in my country without the Cannes-success. This also provides context for the most silly answer to David’s question, namely that the festival matters to the filmmakers themselves. Maybe one could compare it to, say, the Oscar for best cinematography, which, viewed in light of box office numbers and film grossings, doesnt really matter much either, but more than likely counts a lot for the people involved.
Finally, on a sidenote, I always thought the distributor dropped the ball on Dogville big time, when it opening early in the year without a prior qualifying release. If nothing else, the film would have been a shoe in for the supporting actress prizes Patricia Clarkson was reeling in anyway, and being a feature on the awards circuit couldnt have hurted (any more than the strategy chosen).
That discussion a couple of weeks ago where David was referring to Star Trek as ‘trash’ and saying ‘people can enjoy trash but they should call it what it is’? That’s Rambo.
So yeah – Cannes doesn’t matter to anyone whose cinematic diet consists primarily of whatever’s on 3000 screens this weekend. It matters a lot to the tiny portion that is the rest of us.
Jeff, you missed the point. It’s all about context.
Again, I have to call bullshit on all this “David is about numbers, not art” crap.
This is exactly the lame argument that is the problem with Cannes.
Cannes is a great fest and a great platform (that I can have access to any year I wish, Kami, thanks), but the problem I have with the discussion is when it is held up as THE ONE. There is no The One. And as I wrote, the more we hang on to the mythology, the more we damage all the films that don’t emerge.
It is possible that 4,3,2 might have not gotten US distribution without Cannes. (Mongol didn’t premiere at Cannes… maybe you meant another picture, Kim.) It is virtually impossible that The Class would not have. And had Cannes not shown 4,3,2 and they had been shown elsewhere, they may well have had their shot anyway.
What I am arguing against is this notion that because a structure exists, that there is nothing as good as or better than that structure. This lie is exposed all this time. But this particular lie is Ours… and so it is The Truth.
“Seeing Che at Cannes was phenomenal, for both the experience of seeing that particular film at that particular fest and the inherent value of the discussions of the film over drinks with a wide array of cinema lovers immediately after. Discussion seethed and boiled over both the film itself and whether it could ever be distributed, and if so whether it should be cut into one shorter film or seen just as we saw it there — two films, back-to-back, pitched as a film “experience” rather than just a movie.”
With all the love there is, Kim, this is exactly what is wrong with the mentality of media around Cannes. Che’ at Cannes served your purposes. You got to sit around the table and second guess Steven Soderbergh. But it cost the film a bigger distribution deal in the opinion of the filmmaker (which I concur with, having spoken to a number of distributors about it last year). So Cannes likely meant fewer people in America sitting around tables talking about the movie.
Moreover, who the hell needs a bunch of film critics telling an established, wildly talented, commercially conscious, and progressive filmmaker how to make, edit, and distribute his film? (Oh, how I remember the finger wagging,
Mikkel… agree… 100%.
Cannes is the most important film event of the year for Europe.
It used to be the most important film event of the year to the world.
And you don’t think that 4,3,2 could have found its way out of Berlin or Venice?
I’m glad that it found its way out of Cannes, don’t misunderstand. 95% of the festivals in the world won’t launch anything in that way. Cannes deserves a lot of love. It has earned a lot of love. And if, indeed, media stopped paying for their people to go there, they would not likely spend that money – or even half that money – sending them elsewhere in pursuit of great films. So I encourage the investment. But the attitude about it… the angry defenses… ay dios mio…
Agree, Don.
And more movies aren’t reviewed because… it’s expensive.
Reviews of movies that are not big money makers cannot be monetized.
And what I am thinking about and thinking about and thinking about is how to make that work better in the future.
We’re in this very odd space right now where the old traditions are keeping new ones from being created. And the more The New asserts itself, the more the industry clings to The Old.
It is absolutely in my interest to feel compelled to cover SXSW, Seattle, SF, Tribeca, LAFF, AFI, etc in depth every year. I can make that work financially… but not if I am spending $600 a day sending someone to Cannes.
But you know… I don’t HAVE to cover any of those fests in depth… because honestly, they aren’t getting the key films… because Cannes and Sundance and Toronto are eating them up. So we have 30 days of orgiastic events a year, which because of exhaustion, human nature, and the distractions that distract everyone but Bob Koehler (now a fest programmer because Variety stopped spending on criticism), are 30% waste, editorially.
Meanwhile, as a group, we are missing breaking The Great Small Film out of all these other festivals because we have been brainwashed into believing that THEY don’t matter… only that trip to the South of France matters.
It’s not about diminishing Cannes. It is about putting Cannes in perspective and opening up the rest of the world because that is, to my eye, our best shot at making this all function well again.
You’re probably right in arguing (I’m reading between the lines here) that many critis go to Cannes as much to make themselves feel important as due to the festival in itself being (that) important. That does not mean, however, that Cannes is not important at all – clearly it is to some (e.g. Europeans) – and that was the only thing I took offence to.
As for 4,3,2 it probably would have found it’s way. I do think (without bothering to check the facts) that the batting average of Cannes winners opening here in Denmark is better than at least Venice (Berlin is so close, so it is a bit different matter), and for many countries, I would expect it to be so, but probably, yeah, it would.
Without important film festivals altogether, though, I’m not sure the movie makes it out of Eastern Europe at all. Which is one reason why film festivals as such should be championed (as you do in your comments, much more so than in the original post).
I didn’t say anything about Mongol, I said the Mungiu (4 Months, 3 Weeks …)
“Moreover, who the hell needs a bunch of film critics telling an established, wildly talented, commercially conscious, and progressive filmmaker how to make, edit, and distribute his film? (Oh, how I remember the finger wagging,
While I do believe that some of the desire for “first” is about status, it’s also about trying to see a film in as pure an environment as possible. I’m sure there’s a bit of an ego stroke in being among the first group who gets to set the discussion for something like Antichrist by seeing it at Cannes. You’ll probably be able to see it in Toronto, but there’s no way now to see it without being aware of everything that’s been written about it.
And nice mentioning Karlovy Vary. Went two years ago, and had my favorite festival experience ever. Trying to get back, but not sure I can make it work financially this year. (Unless someone wants to give me $1000 to go.)
Couldn’t it also be argued that many, MANY foreign films wouldn’t even get play in American press without Cannes?? Would von Trier even be known to anyone who has a passing interest in film if not for Cannes? Better, would Nicole Kidman have done “Dogville,” a crazy ass film destined for Cannes from the moment von Trier conceived it?
I also get that it’s expensive to send writers to fests, but alot of these fests are willing to help out by paying for flights and/or hotels or even buying ad space on a site. They have a budget to get writers out there in one fashion or another.
Personally, the only time I can really get excited about a film is at a festival. It’s like film church, unless you’re being a jaded jackass in a mood pocket or a drunken doofus running all over town proclaiming your dominance in the field. Festivals are fun and they’re one of the only times we writers can all shoot the shit in person and not on blog message boards. There’s value in hanging out for a common cause, discovering new films and putting overly hyped ones in their place.
I live in Germany. I think Cannes does matter. Me and my friends, we usually wouldn
“It’s like film church, unless you’re being a jaded jackass in a mood pocket or a drunken doofus running all over town proclaiming your dominance in the field.”
Aw, c’mon Don: I haven’t been drunk at a film festival in years. Why do you keep bringing this up? That’s just mean.
Hey, I offered to buy you a merlot at SXSW and you went straight for the bourbon so remember….someone’s alllllways watching 😉
Hey Don, at least Joe wasn’t carrying his bourbon around in a mood pocket while wearing an emotionally vivid cowboy hat.
Well, not this time….
I just love J. Hoberman so much, he makes me think of porno.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/archives/2009/05/the_most_hated.php
HAH! Did you guys see Jeffs new shoes last week on his site? Someone commented that he would likely leave them in his flat at Cannes as a way to claim the spot for next year.
“And more movies aren’t reviewed because… it’s expensive.”
Bingo.
There’s some kind of festival happening almost every other week in L.A. — and for the most part, no-one bothers to blog them, write about them, or even attempt such. I have tried to pitch the notion of actually being thorough about this many a time. But nobody is hiring film critics.
Hell, my former employer, OC Weekly, actually sponsored the Huntington Beach-based SoCal Independent Film Festival last year…and gave it ZERO editorial coverage. I blogged it on my own site, and think I was the only one. Which is too bad because Brian Barsuglia, the guy behind it, actually knows how to pick a decent movie — I’m really glad I saw J.F. Lawton’s JACKSON, even if it never goes anywhere.
By the way, when does LexG’s Boner-fest happen? I want to be on the media list for that one, even if all the movies are just paper cut-outs of jeffmcm.
Luke, you miss the point with your example and yet it’s so odd that they didn’t give it ink. Imagine reviewing every Little League team.
David’s remarks about Cannes remind me of my late father’s reaction to the Grand Canyon. After years of being asked by my stepmom and sister, he brought them to Arizona to see the natural wonder. He wasn’t impressed. As he told me afterwards: “Joseph… It’s just a fuckin’ hole in the ground. Just a fuckin’ hole in the ground”
Does Cannes matter? Yes. As much as it used to? David’s answer seems to be, “No.” For the reasons he’s outlined, it’s hard to disagree. Is Cannes’ place in the world smaller, or is the world it’s in bigger? Is it less influential on its own merits, or only because there’s more resistance (in a physics sense) to that influence? Those are chicken and egg questions, but even if there’s no causation, there is correlation. And one correlation I notice is the increased prominence of Toronto in the last decade or so, which seems to me to have coincided, and not coincidentally, with the rise of the web and other new media. Which is why Dave’s argument seems to me to be that Cannes is by its nature an old media structure. I don’t think he’s made that point explicitly, but that’s how I interpret it. Some old media have shrunk, while others look smaller because the river carried them to a much larger pond.
That’s why I said above that “does Cannes matter?” is very much an inside-the-Beltway type question. It does matter, but only by the principles of the particular universe it inhabits. Internally, to its own paradigm, it matters very much. But step outside it and what counted loses its salience and relevance. To me the issue boils down to medium vs. message. Which is which here? Is Cannes the medium or is it the message? I’ve always been hesitant to accede to McLuhan’s grandiose assertion. Given that, I’d call movies the message and Cannes the medium. Media are necessary, but not sufficient. The message matters more. Hence I’d suggest that this whole debate is being conducted on fundamentally flawed premises. Cannes matters because film matters. Now, put that the other way around. Does film matter because Cannes matters? I don’t think you can answer that question more than one way. Film did just fine before Cannes, and will do just fine after it. Cannes and film aren’t the same thing, and it’s a mistake to conflate the two.
It’s funny, Joe… I see it more like looking at the Grand Canyon and saying, “Looks great… exciting… beautiful… but I really think that there are other natural wonders of the world that are as beautiful, if not more beautiful, and maybe we should look at some of those other places too. And maybe if we gave those other places half the attention, they would be given as much hype as the Grand Canyon.”
But here’s the thing, David: If we’re going to be scrupulously honest, there are only maybe five to ten film festivals in the world that truly have the ability to launch a movie. Cannes undeniably is one of these. Toronto is another. And so is Sundance. Everything else is up for debate.
Imagine reviewing every Little League team.
A movie directed by the guy who wrote Pretty Woman and Under Siege doesn’t strike me as little league. Not that sports coverage comparisons really work here, as James Rocchi pointed out so well.
Cannes matters to me because they screened OldBoy, and raised awareness of it. Because of that i discovered the films of Chanwook Park.
It’s also a yearly event to watch celebrities make fools of themselves whoring out a new project.
It also produces hilarious moments like the “8 minute standing ovation for Clerks 2”. What the hell were they thinking?
Does it matter in terms of marketing or receipts? No. Not significantly. But what festival these days does?
You could argue that certain festivals matter because they generate early buzz and mark the start of word of mouth marketing for award season. But Cannes isn’t one of those festivals. Toronto is.
So we finally have it official: David Poland thinks the Grand Canyon is overrated.
(Right?)
But that is my point, Joe… as long as we keep playing the game of “only these three matter,” then there is no way for anyplace else to matter.
And for the record, a lot of movies get distribution out of Berlin… and other fests create real opportunities out of movies that “failed” elsewhere.
Seattle embraced B13, which everyone had seen and passed on… Magnolia picked it up and did as well with it as they could… James Bond stole its opening… and Taken, without fest help, got a Fox release (“add a movie star, Luc”) and became a smash hit.
But Seattle “doesn’t matter.” Why? Because the media can’t be bothered.
Savvy programming and running a great fest is not enough. And as I keep writing, I am convinced that in this new marketplace, The Big 3 is now beginning to damage great film, not embrace it.
The big difference between Dogville and Anti-Christ? IFC now knows how to make money out of that controversy from the start and von trier knows he’s not getting a Dependent buy with it. But the films that are not going to get that giant wave of crazy going? Many will be lost to the big machine, as in Tarantino hype this morning.
Again… Cannes is a great fest and deserves to be held up as such. But “matter” is a matter of perspective.
Ironically, SXSW suffers a bit from this by self-niche-ing so while it has become more and more muscular, it has created its own glass ceiling of geekiness. Will it get credit for “launching” Drag Me To Hell, which will make more than any Cannes entry? Probably not. Why? Because it’s not thought of that way… except by the studios looking to market that kind of movie.
NYT sent Carr this year… but when you see The Tonyola show down there, you will know it has arrived. And what would be better for American movie lovers than The Paper of Record taking an emerging American festival seriously? How much bigger a platform would SXSW have the next year? How many filmmakers could feel better about launching at SXSW or even, if their film fit better, CHOOSING SXSW over Sundance as a launching pad.
That’s what I am really talking about.
Just like marketing any movie, Cannes is about hype and expectations. No one knows what they are getting when they go, other than Big Name arthousers, who fit a pretty clear mold these days. And it’s not that this is bad… it’s just not the be all and end all that it’s made out to be by people who really get off on being at the party.
Have you noticed, btw, that all the celebrity bullshit at Sundance gets mocked every year… and many of the journos engage us with tales of cocktails and yachts from Cannes every year.
Agreed, but I see that as a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, David. SXSW has grown in importance over the past several years, and they had a good slate this year. But if part of what makes a festival grow in perceived prestige and power is publicity, then isn’t part of what you’re arguing that more outlets should cover SXSW more seriously … perhaps even as seriously as Sundance? You’re right about Drag Me to Hell — SXSW launched that, and was involved with stirring the early buzz for Bruno, too.
I’m curious what you think it will take to raise SXSWs prestige to the level you’re speaking of? More outlets covering SXSW to the same degree they cover Sundance and Toronto? A stronger slate of undistributed films to make the fest more of a market? Which raises the question of whether the perception of a fest market has to be there for a fest to “matter.” It doesn’t with Telluride, but that fest is its own kind of game.
David, please go back and read my posting. I did not say Cannes, Toronto and Sundance were the only festivals that mattered. Indeed, I specifically said there are “five to ten festivals” that are capable of launching films. But the three I mentioned are the only ones I can think of that no reasonably intelligent person could deny places on that list. All other contenders are, well, up for debate. (Remember about 2-3 years ago, when we had a discussion on this blog about the importance, real or perceived, of the New York Film Festival?) For what it’s worth, I would agree that SXSW and Berlin belong on that list — but, at the same time, I know a few folks who might argue otherwise. (For example: They might argue that SXSW has done more to succesfully launch mainstream Hollywood movies — Knocked Up, Eagle Eye and your fave, 21, to name just three examples — than it has to launch new indie talents. Of course, that judgment conveniently overlooks the whole Mumblecore genre… among other things… ) Seattle? I’m sure it’s a great festival — have never attended, or been invited — because I’ve heard great things about it from people who have been there. But, no, it’s not in the same ballpark as Cannes, or Sundance, or SXSW, when it comes to truly “launching” a film. Frankly, I don’t see how you can argue that it does. I’m willing to be convinced, but… Well, as they say on sports-talk radio, look at the scoreboard.
One other thing: Speaking as someone who’s attended every SXSW Film Festival — I’m proud to say I was on the jury for the first edition — I would say that (a) it’s getting more national press now than it ever has (b) it’s still not getting enough, and (c) all it really needs is its very own sex lies & videotape to get its full, fair share of attention. Oh, and (d) the producer reps and publicists who attend SXSW to push their films and solicit reviews are already at this point much more aggressive (and numerous) than I remember their counterparts being at the first few post-sex lies & videotape Sundances that I attended in the 1980s.
And for the record, if we’re going to measure film festivals by the venturesomeness of their programming and the enthusiam of their audiences, the Nashville and Denver fests are truly world class.
Personal to David Poland:
my email address is glennkenny@mac.com.
You want to mention my mother again, go ahead you smug fuckface, but do it at the above address. I’ll meet you any time.
As I’ve said before
I think, Joe, your comment about SXSW needing it’s very own “sex, lies and videotape” to really get launched is a good one. But I think it gets back to what David said about the “Big 3” no longer really “helping” films as much as they used to.
I meet ALOT of filmmakers with very, very good films who year in and year out are waiting for Sundance to come around (or if they’re Canadian, Toronto) so they can submit their film. I always tell them, “why are you waiting for Sundance (etc.) when you can submit to SXSW now, have a better chance of getting in and having people see and care about your film!?!” Why are you waiting for SXSW when you can submit to Austin Filom Fest NOW? They rarely listen. There’s other festivals that could be “better” for a film as well, but I don’t feel like making a list.
The thing is, if they do get into Sundance, no one sees their film. If they don’t get in they’ve either pissed off a programmer who wanted their film but got snubbed or they missed so many other deadlines, they’re knocked down to 3rd and 4th tier festivals. I kind of agree with David if he means the big 3 aren’t as helpful because at those fests, there’s obligatory little quirky films that get picked up and then huge ass “indie” films with stars in them that would be picked up anyway. Everything else falls between the cracks.
And not to harp on it, but it’s the only immediate example I have….if “Frozen River” hadn’t won at Sundance, it would either have vanished or gone straight to DVD. It wasn’t on anyone’s map whatsoever. Obviously, that’s a borderline cinematic crime, but it’s the truth.
Glenn Kenny, thin-skinned douchebag?
No.
Don: I
Agree, Joe. So what’s the solution? Part of me thinks it would be to get more press out to these fests, but that’s expensive. And once they’re there, there’s absolutely NO follow up on what’s being covered, if anything. Jeff Wells’ Oxford comment about his time being better spent seeing Graceland than some (and I’m paraphrasing) crappy indie film made by a nobody is pretty telling.
Not only are there maybe too many fests there’s definitely too many outlets. No one who reads movies sites knows who to trust any more. Sites like Cinematical get a TON of hits (and obviously their parent company adds to that) but I don’t see them championing alot of little stuff. (Cue someone from there to chime in about a review they did of something tiny in 3…2…1…). Meanwhile other sites have become part of the PR machine and film fans are onto them and know they can’t be trusted.
Something has to give sooner or later.
Hey, look: If someone were to give me a living wage and an expense account, I would gladly devote 45 or so weeks a year to filing reviews of indie films from film festivals large and small throughout this great land of ours. Seriously. And I promise you: I wouldn’t be so rude as to not actually cover a festival after accepting an invite to be there. But who would put up the dough for me to do this? And, just as important, who would read the reviews?
Sign me up as well man. What a dream job…