Spooky. The minute I post my delayed Page to Screen discussion of the “The Road,” the film’s trailer finally pops up online. I’m going to try this tactic again in the future. Anyway, here it is.
As that first Esquire review warned us the other day, the marketers appear to have made the curious decision to sell this as a propulsive action piece. I’m not sure who they imagine will fall for that angle, but don’t panic just yet.
We’re working from the outside in on this one, folks. You may recall that Brian Kinsley offered a thorough examination of Joe Penhall’s “The Road” screenplay for this column back in September last year, which already addressed many of the challenges inherent in this particular adaptation.
However, in keeping with Page to Screen’s return to discussing source material rather than scripts – and with John Hillcoat’s film on a lot of people’s minds this week – I thought it a good time to take another look at Cormac McCarthy’s much-garlanded novel. I should specify that I have neither read Penhall’s adaptation nor seen the film; the novel is the only text with which I am engaging at this point.
It seems only fair to start with a blunt, and admittedly very guilty, confession: I don’t very much like McCarthy’s novel.
Before the irate attack begins, let me clarify that this statement is not in any intended as a challenge to “The Road’s” literary worth, much less its potential for successful filmmaking. It is, in its paradoxical construction of loose, virtual shaggy-dog-style narrative and terse, urgent prose, an indisputably awe-inspiring novel, one that at once gazes into the back-to-back mirrors of who we are and who we will be, and arrives at some discomfitingly vivid prophecies in the process.
I commend McCarthy’s avoidance of didacticism and rationalisation: the novel’s grim, apocalyptic future is presented as a terrifying inevitability rather than a cautionary allegory, offering no concrete indication of what led humanity to the long-desecrated point at which the narrative begins.
That may not make the novel as ideologically constructive as the kind of “it takes a village” finger-pointing that colors so many other literary and cinematic warnings of man’s imminent self-destruction – the film, when it finally arrives, would surely make for an interesting double-feature with Andrew Stanton’s “WALL-E” – but it is certainly a much more jolting, unnerving experience for it.
Only two films in so far, but it seems we have a formidable contender for the festival’s top honors in the shape of Andrea Arnold’s “Fish Tank.” The film has just screened for the press, and Arnold — who won the bronze-medal Jury Prize in 2006 with her debut feature “Red Road” — has evidently built on that success, but it seems the real revelation is the film’s 17 year-old star, Katie Jarvis.
A non-professional making her screen debut, Jarvis is unable to attend the festival, having just given birth to her first child in her Essex hometown. But even in her absence, the young lady is generating enough to buzz to plant her as a strong contender for the Best Actress award. IndieWire’s Eugene Hernandez calls her “the first major acting discovery” of the festival, while Screen International’s Allan Hunter gushes:
Following in the wake of Kate Dickie’s extraordinary performance in Red Road, newcomer Katie Jarvis is every bit as impressive as Mia, finding the vulnerability of the teenager without recourse to sentimentality or surrendering any of her anger or sarcasm. It is a performance that should win her a lot of attention and add profile to a film that will have to fight for its audience.
It may not be in the Competition lineup, but Terry Gilliam’s “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” is surely one of the most eagerly — and curiously — awaited films of the Cannes festival. The bulk of the interest, of course, rests on the unfinished final screen performance of Heath Ledger, and how (or, indeed, if) Gilliam’s audacious strategy of completing the late thesp’s characterisation with contributions from three other actors will work.
All will be revealed when the film makes its Cannes debut next Friday, but for now, Gilliam talks up “Parnassus” in an interesting interview with the Times of London — and the famously bolshy director minces no words when it comes to his awards hopes from the film:
The planned release date for Doctor Parnassus is in the autumn. “We want to be in that last third for the Academy Awards! Maybe we’ll get another award for Heath. We’re going to get as many awards as possible for him, long after he’s gone.”
Meanwhile, he’s confident that Jude Law, Johnny Depp and Colin Farrell’s continuation of Ledger’s role is a success, both in terms of artistry and commercial viability:
We were lucky because we have a magic mirror in this movie. Not every movie has a magic mirror. So you can very genuinely say that these other actors are different aspects of the character that Heath plays. And it works. The point was, we’ve got to keep going. It was a bit like half being there, but apparently on autopilot I can still do a few things … It’s a hard thing to do, walk into a character and take over. But they did it.
So as is the norm with Pixar productions, “Up” is apparently capturing the heart of virtually every critic it encounters. Jeff Wells offered a few mild caveats, but he was largely won over as well. So I was interested to read Kaleem Aftad’s three-star review in the Independent, which offers the first hard-and-fast criticism of the film I’ve seen to date:
Watching with tinted glasses cannot hide the deficiencies of this adventure. It is increasingly apparent that Pixar is a company that operates best when dealing with nostalgia. Like the outfit’s previous film, WALL-E, Up is superb in setting up characters and a world that hankers over memories of yesteryear, but once the adventure moves into its obligatory action denouement, it enters a world of stereotypes that disappoints.
Indeed, action sequences have been Pixar’s Achilles’ heel, with overly long and tedious effects letting down Cars and The Incredibles. In Up, the blockbuster moments that should be of Around the World in 80 Days proportions are instead surprisingly uninventive.
Apart from the kooky animals (nowhere near as endearing as The Jungle Book ones), the destination is a boring land of plateaus and uninspiring forests. Muntz pops up as a Wizard of Oz-inspired villain. The nostalgic past is replaced by a horrible sentimental present that lacks emotional punch.
Not having seen the film, I have no idea how valid these jabs are, but it’s useful to get some perspective. Interestingly, unlike several critics who are signficantly more enthusiastic about the film, Aftad has no problem whatsoever with the film’s 3-D element, justifying it on the grounds that it emphasises “optical reality rather than just an eye-popping spectacle.”
In contrast, the Guardian’s Xan Brooks, who loves the film, sides with Roger Ebert, complaining: “It’s a film that was always going to come in three dimensions, no matter what digital wizardry they garnished it with.”
Well, it looks every bit as glossy and gaudy as you might have expected (even more so in Apple HD), though it’s a tease, really: there’s little sense of the movie beneath the flash and sizzle. The only player amid the impressive ensemble that is even vaguely showcased is Judi Dench, but if her entire performance is in the amusing, imperiously tart register of that first speech, I sense a seventh nomination in the works. Otherwise, there’s not much here to go on, but enjoy the show:
Many pundits were predicting that Lou Ye’s erotic drama “Spring Fever” could nab the Palme d’Or, if only as a political gesture against the Chinese censors who imposed a five-year filmmaking ban on the director — which he has defied with this film. Following last night’s press screening, however, those hopes have taken a bit of a knock, as it appears to be more an intriguing curiosity than a surefire arthouse success.
Screen International’s Howard Feinstein is beguiled by the film’s elaborate floral imagery and “astonishing” cinematography, but feels its narrative opacity and explicit sexual content might limit it to the gay festival circuit:
Close-ups of flowers not only open and close the film, they also pop up intermittently, mirroring shifts in both the story line and the state of mind of its gay protagonist. This integration of visuals and narrative, however, is the exception rather than the rule in this ambitious and – by mainland Chinese standards – daring project. The screenplay is so convoluted and contains so many loose ends that the intense style (fragmented editing, jerky, handheld camera) only highlights the movie’s occasional lapses into incoherence.
There’s a bewildering wealth of quality Cannes coverage out there, and it tests the realms of possibility to mention it all. In the interests of economy, however, here’s a selection of the more interesting festival-related nuggets I found today:
Eugene Hernandez at IndieWire has a superb piece up in which he approaches a broad selection of industry figures and bloggerfolk with the question of whether Cannes matters much these days. The response of many is sad yet predictable: that the festival does indeed matter from the purist’s perspective of showcasing artistically nourishing films, but that with the commercial window for foreign and/or arthouse fare increasingly narrowing, it has less bearing on the U.S. market than it should. Still, I liked the succinctly idealistic take of one interviewee: “When Cannes no longer matters, film will no longer matter.”
Back to the films themselves, the New York Times’ Joan Dupont offers her own rundown of the key titles in the mix, picking up, as others have,on the prevalence of controversial auteurs in this year’s lineup. She also provokes this soundbite from the fest’s executive director Thierry Frémaux, explaining why this year’s Competition line-up is so heavy on previous winners and established names:
“Yes, the big names are back, and with big films … The selection reflects our concern for auteurs — that’s our job. You need to be strong to be in competition; everybody’s watching you. That’s why we think that many films are better off in Un Certain Regard. The filmmakers don’t always agree.”
I can’t say I agree, either. It’s precisely two decades since a miniature character study from a 26 year-old first-time director walked off the Palme d’Or and changed the face of American independent filmmaking in the process — would Steven Soderbergh have been relegated to the Un Certain Regard sidebar today? I suspect so, and that demonstrates a cautiousness that can only curb Cannes’ capacity for trend-setting.
I know I promised a Page to Screen column on “The Road” today, but once in a blue moon, promises have to be broken. The start of the Cannes festival has ushered in a wealth of distractions, and as much as it slips my mind some days, I have a life away from my laptop too. I am but one man.
So I must this once postpone the piece until tomorrow — but rest assured that Tuesdays will remain Page to Screen days from next week.
Todd McCarthy apparently posted a review for Francis Ford Coppola’s “Tetro” on the Variety site, but it seems to have mysteriously vanished — I guess embargos stills hold sway in some cases, after all. Still, if you cannot contain your curiosity, Jeff Wells has quoted a juicy chunk of the review, and the prognosis is not terribly positive.
There’s enthusiastic praise for young actor Alden Ehrenreich, who apparently reminds McCarthy of all three leads of “The Departed” (there’s a curious mental image), but the film, according to the critic, becomes mired in murky theatrical stylistics — which I’m afraid squares with the vibe I personally got from the film’s trailer.
I don’t really want to requote criticism that was obviously prematurely released in the first place, but I know there’s a lot of interest in this title, so it’s there if you want it. The film screens tomorrow at Cannes.
One day into the Cannes festival and the gears of commerce are already grinding, with Sony Pictures Classics looking particularly alert. The independent outfit announced two substantial acquisitions today, most notably Michael Haneke’s “The White Ribbon,” a period drama themed around issues of fascism and community that is one of the bookies’ favorites for the Palme d’Or.
SPC have pretty good instincts on the Croisette — last year’s purchases included “The Class” and “Waltz With Bashir.” As with Haneke’s last film, “Caché,” they will be handling all North American distribution, and they appear to have high hopes for the film. Here’s an extract from the press release:
The White Ribbon is set just prior to the start of WWI, where the quiet life of a small German village is mysteriously eroded by a series of inexplicable events. The film is a co-production between X-Filme Creative Pool in Germany, Les Films du Losange in France, Wega Film in Austria and Lucky Red in Italy. THE WHITE RIBBON was produced by Margaret Menegoz (CACHÉ, Funny Games), Stefan Arndt (Run Lola Run, Goodbye, Lenin!), Veit Heiduschka and Michael Katz.
“We have been pursuing THE WHITE RIBBON since it was a kernel of an idea in Michael Haneke’s mind. We are convinced this is his masterwork. It is a privilege and a pleasure to be releasing Michael’s latest film and to work again with him and his amazing producers Margaret Menegoz and Stefan Arndt,” said SPC in a statement.
Not content with that coup, Sony has also nabbed U.S. rights to the festival’s closing film, “Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky.” (Not exactly that catchiest title, that.) Starring Danish star Mads Mikkelsen and telling the story of the affair between the two eponymous cultural icons, it is not to be confused with Anne Fontaine’s Audrey Tautou-starring biopic “Coco Avant Chanel,” which SPC is also distributing Stateside — as savvy commenter Glenn points out, this is likely a move to prevent a head-to-head biopic battle.
Someone asked me to offer my best (read: worst) guesses as to which Cannes films might get lucky on awards night. I originally wasn’t going to, on the principle that it’s a self-defeating exercise to handicap films one barely knows anything about, but then I saw the Guardian is plucking odds out of thin air, so why not? Awards punditry … the game the whole family can play.
And hey, I may as well gift you with the opportunity to come back in two weeks’ time and laugh at my clairvoyant incompetence. I’m nice that way. My guesses after the cut — feel free to share your own in the comments.
UPDATE: I was expecting Jeff Wells to come up with a slightly contrarian take on “Up,” and he doesn’t disappoint. Not that he doesn’t like the film — “peppy,” “delightful,” “visually luscious” and “touching” are some of the adjectives he tosses its way — but he does qualify his praise with concerns that the film compromises itself somewhat by trying to be all things to all men:
It’s not meant as a putdown to say that Up is too immersed in buoyant punchiness and mainstream movie-tude, which basically boils down to Pixar’s always-front-and-center task of giving the family audience stuff to laugh at and go “oooh” and “aahh” about, to finally matter all that much. It’s too entertaining, in put it another way, to sink in all that deeply.
So what am I saying, boiled down? That it’s really quite well made and has an almost stoner sensibility in portions but may be a little too good for the lowbrows and at the same time isn’t really deep and resonant enough to penetrate with quality-cinema buffs? Something like that.
Wells will no doubt have to fend off accusations of curmudgeonliness for that take, but whether I wind up agreeing with him or not, I understand what he’s getting at. At the very least, it’s healthy to hear a perspective that diverges from the unreserved praise doing the rounds: if Pixar movies are indeed the adult auteur works so many critics insist they are, then they merit more complicated critiques.
EARLIER: Kudos to Jeff Wells for this hilarious snap from this morning’s “Up” press screening at Cannes. Made me laugh, anyway.
Thanks to AwardsDaily for pointing out this trailer for Isabel Coixet’s new effort, which will be the final Competition title to screen at the Cannes Film Festival. That’s the same slot that proved so lucky for “The Class” last year, but speaking for myself, this trailer doesn’t suggest similarly great things ahead — much as I like Rinko Kikuchi and Sergi Lopez, this looks a little fey for my liking. Still, as I mentioned in my Cannes preview recently, Coixet is the only auteur making her first appearance in the Competition this year, so we wish her well.
WARNING: Nude scenes render the trailer strictly unsuitable for work.
Quelle dommage. It appears that Nicole Kidman has dropped out of Woody Allen’s untitled 2010 project. No explanation has been offered.
It’s hard to say how great a loss this is — with details on the film so sketchy at this point, we have no idea whether we’re talking about the actress ditching a major role or one of those starry cameos he occasionally sprinkles through his ensemble pieces. I’m disappointed nonetheless; Allen would have been a nice name to check off on the actress’s enviable auteur roster.
I’d suggest the obvious replacement of Naomi Watts, but — oh, wait — she’s already in it. Is Cate Blanchett free?
With all the positive word that’s been trickling out this past week, it’s no surprise to hear that “Up” has scored universally breathless raves from the trade papers.
Actually, it’s no surprise under any circumstances — with the sole exception of “Cars,” it’s one of the safest bets in the in the industry that every Pixar production will arrive on an overwhelming wave of critical goodwill, with the usual go-words of “wondrous,” “captivating,” “inspiring,” and more often than not some jab about how the studio is currently making the greatest films in American cinema.
Not that I’m being facetious — I loved “WALL-E” too last year, even if not all Pixar’s efforts inspire the same reverent devotion in me that they seem to in most critics. I’m just saying the reviews give me no idea yet where my heart will lie on this one.
We can expect more “Up” buzz throughout the day: the Cannes press screening is going on as we speak, ahead of the film’s official opening of the festival tonight. For now, here’s McCarthy’s Variety valentine:
Depending on what you think of “Cars,” Pixar makes it either 9½ out of 10 or 10 for 10 with “Up,” a captivating odd-couple adventure that becomes funnier and more exciting as it flies along. Tale of an unlikely journey to uncharted geographic and emotional territory by an old codger and a young explorer could easily have been cloying, but instead proves disarming in its deep reserves of narrative imagination and surprise, as well as its poignant thematic balance of dreams deferred and dreams fulfilled.
Unsurprisingly, no one puts a foot wrong here. Vocal performances, most importantly from Asner, Plummer and nonpro Nagai, exude a warm enthusiasm, and tech specifications could not be better. Michael Giacchino’s full-bodied, traditional score is superlative, developing beautiful themes as it sweeps the action along on emotional waves.
We’ve certainly waited a while to get any substantial word on “The Road,” not least since it got pushed back by an entire year to ease the pressure of post-production. John Hillcoat’s film screened in unfinished form late last year, provoking a scattering of commentary — the Film Experience’s Nathaniel Rogers offered some interesting thoughts, though sensibly held off on any detailed critique — but the film has remained something of a mystery.
Now, amid an interesting profile of the film, Esquire magazine’s Tom Chiarella has gone on the record as saying it’s good — very good indeed. Though he admits the film is a harrowing sit (as it well should be) that you won’t necessarily want to endure more than once, he’s full of admiration for the film as a fundamental piece of storytelling:
The Road is no tease. It is a brilliantly directed adaptation of a beloved novel, a delicate and anachronistically loving look at the immodest and brutish end of us all. You want them to get there, you want them to get there, you want them to get there — and yet you do not want it, any of it, to end.
You should see it for the simplest of reasons: Because it is a good story. Not because it may be important. Not because it is unforgettable, unyielding. Not because it horrifies. Not because the score is creepily spiritual. Not because it is littered with small lines of dialogue you will remember later. Not because it contains warnings against our own demise. All of that is so. Don’t see it just because you loved the book. The movie stands alone.
Here’s pretty much the coolest thing I’ve seen on the internet in a while: We Love You So is a blog from the makers of “Where the Wild Things Are” that details, in pleasantly haphazard fashion, the various films, books, images and other bits and bobs that served as form of influence or inspiration (however tangential) for them while working on the film — and plenty else besides.
As you’d expect from Spike Jonze and his crew, it’s a pretty mixed bag. I was, however, thrilled and excited to read that Jonze regards Lynne Ramsay’s amazing “Ratcatcher” as a relevant tonal reference, citing the way the film so emphatically enters the midset of its child protagonist, adopting his own perspective. Smart thinking. It’s a clear sign (as if we needed one) that Jonze is taking this story as seriously as he would any adult-oriented project.
Amid the more random odds and ends on the site, I particularly loved this delightfully depressing photo of a desolate New York ice-cream parlor, that illustrates the extent to which Maurice Sendak’s book has permeated everyday life:
