By Jake Howell jake.howell@utoronto.ca

Countdown To Cannes: François Ozon

Posted Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013 - 1 Comment »
Be Sociable, Share!

FRANÇOIS OZON

Background: French; born Paris, France 1967.

Known for / style: 8 Women (2002), Swimming Pool (2003), In the House (2012); films with liberal philosophy towards sexuality, gay and lesbian themes, working with a repertory that includes Charlotte Rampling, Catherine Deneuve, Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi and Melvil Poupaud.

Notable accolades: Given his embrace of LGBT themes, a substantial sheaf of Ozon’s awards have come from events like the San Francisco Lesbian and Gay Film Festival (2006’s Frameline award), L.A. Outfest (2000’s Grand Jury Prize for 1999’s Criminal Lovers), and the New York Lesbian and Gay Film Festival (2000’s Best Feature award for Water Drops on Burning Rocks). Outside of those festivals, In the House did well in the general circuit, picking up the Jury Prize for Best Screenplay and the Golden Seashell at San Sebastián, while winning the FIPRESCI prize at TIFF.

Film he’s bringing to Cannes: Jeune et Jolie (Young and Beautiful), a sexy drama depicting four seasons in the life of a 17-year-old girl. That may sound vague, but the film’s trailer implies prostitution (or other sexual grey areas) as the film’s subject. Upcoming French actress Marina Vacth plays the young and beautiful lead, with Charlotte Rampling, Frédéric Pierrot, Géraldine Pailhas, and Nathalie Richard cast in supporting roles. Jeune et Jolie marks the fourth time Ozon has worked with Rampling.


Previous Cannes appearances: After two sidebar premieres (short A Summer Dress hit the Croisette in 1996; Sitcom played in 1998), Ozon joined the Competition for 2003’s Swimming Pool, with 2005’s Time to Leave unspooling in Un Certain Regard. Ozon’s most recent film to debut at the Festival is 2006’s A Curtain Raiser, a short that played Out of Competition.

Could it win the Palme? Unlikely. Ozon has yet to strike gold at Cannes, and this year holds no real indication that this will change. Echoing this is an April 19 Vulture article, “Can Hollywood Understand French Director François Ozon?,” which underlines the uncertainty of Ozon’s Palme potential. In other words, with Steven Spielberg’s jury set to judge the Competition, Vulture may as well have titled their article: “Can Steven Spielberg Understand François Ozon?” Furthermore, we know that Jeune et Jolie is carried by a relatively unknown lead actress, which makes it harder to have utter confidence in the film’s acting (of course, Charlotte Rampling’s supporting role should minimize that variable). As it stands, courting the Hollywood giant could prove difficult for Ozon; on the other hand, the fifty-second preview for Jeune et Jolie is sleek and sexy.

Why you should care: Ozon was once known as the enfant terrible of French cinema, an intriguing title that says much about the director’s provocative filmography. Having cranked out a film almost annually for the past 16 years, the productive Ozon has found some mainstream success touring the festival circuit with In the House, which opened in New York and Los Angeles last week. As for Jeune et Jolie, well…having watched the beguiling teaser (and it is a tease) the film strikes me as having the potential to be both elegant and mysterious, with a dash of carnal pleasure. Who would say no?

Follow Jake Howell on Twitter: @Jake_Howell

Be Sociable, Share!

Posted in Cannes, Cannes Originals, MCN Originals, Movie City News | 1 Comment »

One Response to “Countdown To Cannes: François Ozon”

  1. Alex Griffith says:
    April 24, 2013 at 5:07 pm

    I think that unlike two-time winner Haneke, a European auteur who has won lots of North American fans, Ozon’s sexual politics don’t really translate beyond LGBT fan bases. So a Palme win seems unlikely, in my humble opinion, if Spielberg carries any influence.

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