By Jake Howell jake.howell@utoronto.ca

Countdown To Cannes: Nichols, Daniels, Dominik

The seventh in a series of snapshots of the twenty-two filmmakers in Competition for the Palme d’Or at the sixty-fifth Festival de Cannes.

 

JEFF NICHOLS

Background: American; born in Little Rock, Arkansas 1978.

Known for / style: Take Shelter and Shotgun Stories; narratives in rural America; working with Michael Shannon; psychological dramas; writing in addition to directing

Film he’s bringing to CannesMud, a contemporary drama that follows two teenage boys harboring a fugitive (Matthew McConaughey) who is trying to reunite with his true love (Reese Witherspoon). Also included in the cast are Michael Shannon (who has now worked on all three of Nichols’ features), Sarah Paulson (Martha Marcy May Marlene), Sam Shepard (The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, as well as Andrew Dominik’s Killing Them Softly, also in Competition this year), Ray McKinnon (Take Shelter), and Tye Sheridan (The Tree of Life).

Notable accolades: Nichols’ Take Shelter took Cannes’ Critics’ Week Grand Prize after nearly snagging Sundance’s top award, also winning prizes like Zurich’s Golden Eye. Shotgun Stories won Seattle’s New American Cinema Award, as well as a FIPRESCI Prize at the Viennale.

Previous Cannes appearances: Nichols has never played in Competition, but has rightfully earned a chance to do so this year—thereby skipping Un Certain Regard—by winning last year’s Critics’ Week.

Could it win the Palme? It may be a dark horse, but sometimes the film you least expect to win inevitably does. In fact, despite having only seen a couple of clips of Nichols’ latest, I’m willing to wager Mud has a large amount of success at this year’s Festival. Additionally, with the Cannes schedule having been just announced, it’s clear they want us to stick around: Mud is playing dead last (but hopefully not least) in the Competition. This is a good sign. There are also some highly-positive rumors floating around the web…

Jeff Nichols.

Why you should care: Nichols may be new compared to the rest of the Competition (Nichols is the youngest of the slate at 33), but it would be genuinely foolish to dismiss him in any capacity. In terms of the talent, Matthew McConaughey has perhaps made some lesser decisions in his acting career (2006’s Failure to Launch, 2008’s Fool’s Gold), but with two films in 2012’s Competition, he appears to be actually trying again (McConaughey is also in Lee Daniels’ The Paperboy). The same can also be said for Reese Witherspoon, who has been phoning in romantic comedies roughly for the past decade or so. With Take Shelter as his calling card, Nichols has secured an immense amount of trust in these A-list celebrities in desperate need of a sincerely great film – a reboot, if you well, to remind audiences of their ability. Riding a wave of success and critical acclaim at nearly every important festival of 2011, Jeff Nichols is a director who shouldn’t be ignored. Finally, it’ll be neat to see another appearance with The Tree of Life’s Tye Sheridan, the child actor who is nearly unrecognizable since working with Terrence Malick.

LEE DANIELS

Background: American; born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1959.

Known for / style: Precious and Shadowboxer; directing adaptations of texts; producing and acting in addition to directing

Film he’s bringing to CannesThe Paperboy, a thriller based on Pete Dexter’s 1995 novel of the same name. The film follows a reporter who returns to his hometown to investigate a death-row inmate’s involvement in an ongoing case, and his possible wrongful conviction. Stars include John Cusack, Zac Efron, Matthew McConaughey, and Nicole Kidman.

Notable accolades: Daniels has only two films under his belt prior to The Paperboy, but one of them was deemed worthy of awards praise: 2009’s Precious saw massive success, winning Toronto’s People’s Choice Award (a title that has predicted several Best Picture Oscars), Sundance’s Grand Jury Prize and Audience Award, Independent Spirit’s Best Director and Best Feature awards, as well as earning him Academy Award nominations for directing and best picture.

Previous Cannes appearances: Daniels is coming to the Croisette this year for the first time, but not without some skepticism: despite the acclaim of Precious, many pundits were confused when the Official Selection was first announced, thinking it strange that Daniels would be placed straight to the Competition. With a 100% male slate, industry journalists argued there are other directors in the Selection–most of them female–worthy of graduating out of Un Certain Regard.

Could it win the Palme? To be blunt, it seems unlikely. Muddling awards promise for The Paperboy is Daniels’ spotty directing career, which has hit both ends of the spectrum: 2005’s very poorly-received Shadowboxer is critically opposite to the cultural phenomenon that is Precious. It remains to be seen if it was truly Daniels’ direction that made Precious as big as it was, as the novel it came from was already incredibly powerful. (The adapted screenplay and Mo’Nique’s performance were perhaps the true stars of the film version, as Oscar confirmed at the 82nd Academy Awards.) However, it’s too soon to assume luck was involved at this point in his career: after all, Daniels has only three sole directing credits to his name. Nevertheless, Shadowboxer’s embarrassing 10% Top Critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes is certainly troubling. Adding to the uncertainty of a 2012 success for Daniels are the lifeless clips of The Paperboy found online, which are lukewarm in their ability to evoke anything positive. That’s a shame, given the formerly untouchable John Cusack and Nicole Kidman (recent Hollywood cash-ins have greatly reduced their acting clout).

Why you should care: It’s possible Shadowboxer was just a misstep for Daniels, and it’s also possible The Paperboy will be the sorely-needed redemption for the household names in the cast. Matthew McConaughey, Nicole Kidman, and John Cusack deserve a successful art film to pull them out of the romantic comedy wormhole, and Daniels may have one on his hands. Who knows? We will soon, and it’ll be interesting to see if Lee Daniels is (or is not) a one-hit wonder.

ANDREW DOMINIK

Background: Australian; born in Wellington, New Zealand 1967.

Known for / style: Chopper and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford; a focus on crime and justice; working with Brad Pitt; directing adaptations of texts


Film he’s bringing to CannesKilling Them Softly (originally titled Cogan’s Trade), a crime drama based on George V. Higgin’s 1974 novel of the same name. Brad Pitt plays Jackie Cogan, an enforcer / point-man who investigates a heist during an underground poker game. Stars also include Ray Liotta, James Gandolfini, Richard Jenkins, Bella Heathcote, and Slaine.

Notable accolades: As Dominik has directed just two films prior to Killing Them Softly, he has yet to secure any major, world-class titles. Nevertheless, 2000’s Chopper managed to take the Australian Film Institute’s award for direction, as well as a similarly-themed win from the Film Critics’ Circle of Australia.

Andrew Dominik (left) © Ray Pride.

Previous Cannes appearances: Dominik has never played Cannes, meaning normally he would be placed in a side event. However, the casting of Brad Pitt overrides that: Cannes adores star power.

Could it win the Palme?  Dominik has an intelligent flair for artsy violence. As we can see with the Cannes success of 2011’s Drive, crime films are well-suited to such direction, so it’s possible a repeat of sorts could occur. Then again, Robert De Niro was the president of the jury last year, and how could the man of Taxi Driver fame not adore a film like Drive? Regardless of the Palme race, everybody will be watching to see if Brad Pitt continues to reach new heights in his career. 2011 was an incredible year for Pitt—second only in success and critical worship to perhaps Jessica Chastain—making it a sensible assumption that Pitt has done a competent job as Jackie Cogan. At least, that’s the hope—especially since Pitt has a producing credit on the film. Dominik’s third feature also debuts smack-dab in the middle of the Festival, a prime location for an exciting film to reawaken jet-lagged critics and movie-tired jury members.

Why you should care: Andrew Dominik’s main problem with The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was probably length – the film bordered on three hours – but he looks to have greatly reduced that issue with Killing Them Softly, a film with a run-time of 1:44. The director practically came out of nowhere with 2000’s Chopper, which was apparently good enough to convince Brad Pitt to be in his sophomore follow-up. That makes this much clear: Pitt must love working with Dominik if he’s returning in his latest film. In other words, you don’t get to cast the top of the A-list without good reason. Luckily, Brad Pitt typically gravitates towards fairly strong projects, a reassuring hint as to the quality of Killing Them Softly. Additionally, James Gandolfini and fictional mobs go together like peanut butter and jelly, giving anyone who has ever heard of The Sopranos a reason to check this film out.

Be Sociable, Share!

3 Responses to “Countdown To Cannes: Nichols, Daniels, Dominik”

  1. Rman says:

    The length of a movie is never a problem in viewing a movie especially if it’s an exceptional one like “The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford”.

  2. Jake Howell says:

    Rman – I quite enjoyed Jesse James. However, a quick glance at the film on Rotten Tomatoes shows that a lot of critics mention the duration, be it negative or neutral. The run-time was probably an issue for folks in positions of power, despite the film being very solid.

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/assassination_of_jesse_james_by_the_coward_robert_ford/

  3. K. Bowen says:

    Your dismissal of Jesse James is disturbing. It was the best film of the previous decade.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon