MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Cannes Day 2: Girls Just Wanna Have… (Part 1 of 2)

Day Two of the festival continued to drip from the sky and on the screen as teens in trouble (or are they?) was the theme of the day.

You couldn’t really pick two more different views of teenage girls than Francois Ozon’s Young & Beautiful and Sofia Coppola’s The Bling Ring. The first is an intimate eight months with a 17-year-old, observing and never forcing her subtext to the surface, any more than one can with any 17-year-old girl. The other is all about surface, as a group of teens (all but one a girl) say everything they think all the time… but with nothing of significance to say, simply vomiting up their fame-driven view of happiness and success.

Interestingly, in both films, a male character who is conscious, but not really ready to express wisdom, is the “narrator,” if you will, or at least the point of entry.

Jeune & Jolie (Young & Beautiful) is another Ozon drama that is as dry as his campy films are wet. It’s hard to write about the film without spoilers, as the piece watches a young woman make choices that the audience is never quite able to anticipate. From the very first shot, in which she is being watched on a private beach cove from a distance, deciding whether she might dare to take her top off to sunbathe, to the very end, in which she engages a “ghost” of herself, the whim and pain of youth is really all that guides her.

I expect that many writers will have a hard time getting over an often-naked beauty as anything but exploitation, not unlike people unable to get past Richard Pryor’s language. There is a prudish attitude amongst many seemingly hip people that is spiked by the idea of a film actually addressing sexuality without clear (perhaps harsh) judgements. This is one reason I love Ozon as a filmmaker. He tells stories that almost no one else does, about people who have power or assets or confidence. He does not artistically abandon these people because they “have no right” to complain… who might be unsympathetic because they don’t suffer “the right way.”

For me, what completely clicked in Young & Beautiful – and I saw it twice on the day – is that it captured the terse, illogical, stuttering, passionate, dispassionate, disappointed, angry, thrilling journey of a young woman who is profoundly empowered by the birthright of her looks. Really, it isn’t that much different than other girls’ struggles. It’s simply heightened by the peculiar asset of her looks and the choices she makes.

Moreover, the film speaks to the ongoing struggle of many women with this power… the unspoken truths, the changing roles, the wildcard in a life. No woman in the film is living a life completely on the surface.

So far, the response of female critics I have heard from and read has been dismissive. But not to put too fine a point on it, this story may seem absurd and unreal to some, but I know more than one of these women. I grew up with a slew of them. And their seemingly high-drama turn can be, in reality, quite banal.

It is as obvious and unimaginably convoluted as… well… women. And I mean that in much the way I would suggest that men tend to be much simpler, lacking the mystery that makes women irresistible to the heterosexual male (which is no excuse for male self-indulgence, another issue altogether).

The discussion of Ozon’s sexuality is an interesting one, which is unlikely to be much engaged. He makes a lot of movies about female power, whether the dramas or the high camp. Does the inclination of the filmmaker matter when it comes to putting the work in perspective? Hmmmm…

Be Sociable, Share!

7 Responses to “Cannes Day 2: Girls Just Wanna Have… (Part 1 of 2)”

  1. Lex says:

    BLING RING = the ONLY MOVIE at this festival I REMOTELY care about. I would just roll into the screening then fly home. GOOD ENOUGH.

  2. Keil S. says:

    Lex, how many years will you continue plaguing the Interweb with your horny buffoon schtick? I’d like to mark it on my calendar.

  3. Lex says:

    Keil, I have vowed over 100 times I will ABSOLUTELY retire this shtick the day I finally have sex. You’d think Poland or Wells or somebody would MAKE IT HAPPEN if only to be rid of my insane antics that are tiresome EVEN TO ME.

  4. Lex says:

    ALSO FUCK OFF, ain’t you been stalking and sniding my ass since TAPLEY put up some video of me talking about the FIGHTER on IN CONTENTION 3 years ago? KEIL SHULTS, popping up every time I post anywhere. Limey asshole.

    Who’s a bigger loser, me doing my shtick, or you remembering every word of it like a total psycho

  5. Keil S. says:

    Exactly what evidence have I given that I remember “every word you’ve said?” Or even “any specific words” for that matter? You seem to remember our crossing of paths far more vividly than I do. And I highly doubt I pop up anywhere CLOSE to “every time you post anywhere,” because my interest in sites like this one, In Contention, Indiewire, and Awards Daily continues to diminish exponentially.

    P.S. I do, however, admire your impressive use of capitalization. Keep fighting the good fight.

  6. Keil S. says:

    Funny. Anyway, I apologize for lashing out at you for your movie tastes, since you didn’t do anything to provoke me directly. I just hadn’t been on this site much since awards season, and when I saw that someone claimed to not care about any of the other potentially great movies playing at Cannes, it struck a nerve.

  7. Etguild2 says:

    Great review. I feel like Coppola’s insulated gliteratti of tabloid/fame obsessed teens/tweens gets smaller by the year…thankfully.

    I still don’t get how Britney Spears’s (brilliant, with Coppola muse Stephon Dorff as a violent Justin Timberlake) suicide fantasy music video “Everytime,” and her and Lohan’s subsequent schizophrenic behavior didn’t end the vacuous obsession with these personalities and lifestyles years ago.

The Hot Blog

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