In Contention

Tag: Charlotte Gainsbourg

  • REVIEW: “Melancholia” (***1/2)

    Cannes Film Festival

    It’s the end of the world as we know it, and Lars von Trier feels fine. Well, not “fine,” exactly: he feels as despairing and sceptical and faithless as he usually does, but that’s clearly where he’s comfortable, and where his creative faculties thrive most actively.

    They’re certainly in rude health in “Melancholia,” a ravishing arthouse blockbuster that extends the self-therapy he began in 2009’s bracingly unhinged horror film “Antichrist,” but with more thematic cohesion and tonal restraint. The sensation-hungry, who label any new von Trier film ‘controversial’ before seeing a shred of footage, will likely be disappointed — that is, if they’re not appeased by some tame shots of Kirsten Dunst rutting on a golf course. (Luckily for them, as if realizing the deficit, the director compensated with some trademark shenanigans at the press conference.)

    For the rest of von Trier’s fans, however, the film’s lack of overt audience-baiting serves to place his formal gifts in starker relief. A subdued, even elegant, vision of the apocalypse that begins as a waking dream and continues in an actuality no less feverish, “Melancholia” represents the natural culmination of the depressive doubt in self and society that has needled most of von Trier’s features. As a statement on the spiritual bankruptcy of the human race, it may well prove unfurtherable: after destroying the world we live in — a spoiler only to the most tone-deaf of viewers, I assure you — where does the man have left to go?

    (more…)

  • CANNES CHECK: ‘Melancholia’

    The director: Lars von Trier (Denmark)

    The talent: After the lonesome two-hander that was “Antichrist,” von Trier is back to the all-star ensemble form of “Dogville” — and an eclectic ensemble at that. Taking on the traditionally punishing duties of von Trier’s female lead (though the man maintains she got off lightly) is Kirsten Dunst. Previous von Trier alumni in the cast include Charlotte Gainsbourg, John Hurt and Stellan Skarsgård, while Charlotte Rampling, Skarsgård’s son Alexander and, most unexpectedly, Kiefer Sutherland join in the fun. (Plus, Udo Kier is credited as “Wedding planner,” which sounds like very good value indeed.) Below the line, the most important thing to note is the switch from von Trier’s regular DP Anthony Dod Mantle to the less familiar Manuel Alberto Claro (“Videocracy”).

    The pitch: The film’s official one-line synopsis may well be one of the most brazenly off-balance I’ve ever read, so I see no need to paraphrase: “Two sisters find their relationship challenged as a nearby planet threatens to collide into the Earth.” (Well, yes — planetary collisions have a way of complicating things.)

    (more…)

  • ‘Melancholia’ trailer

    I’m continuing my 2011 resolution of not watching trailers for films I’m really looking forward to, but for the less ascetic among you, here’s our first glimpse of Lars von Trier’s latest, which will doubtless turn up in next month’s Cannes lineup. As many of you know, I’m always in the tank for von Trier — I was firmly on the “pro” side of the “Antichrist” debate two years ago — and with that fascinatingly eclectic cast on board, including a second go-round for Charlotte Gainsbourg, I scarcely need to see any footage to put this atop my “most anticipated” list. Click on the image below to watch it at the film’s official website, or check out the embed after the jump.

    (more…)

  • Small victories

    Veeeeery small. And silver medals rather than victories. But hey, kudos to the Central Ohio Film Critics Association for (almost) going where no one else will go:

    Best Actress: Carey Mulligan, “An Education”
    Runner-up: Charlotte Gainsbourg, “Antichrist”

    Best Cinematography: Robert Richardson, “Inglourious Basterds”
    Runner-up: Anthony Dod Mantle, “Antichrist”

  • INTERVIEW: Willem Dafoe

    Willem DafoeI have thought about little else since seeing Lars Von Trier’s “Antichrist” at TIFF a few months ago.  The astonishing, beautiful images are in my head once a day, the performances have never strayed from my mind. At this writing I still do not know if I liked the film, but I do feel it is an important work of art that makes tough demands on the audience, as all fine art should.

    The subject matter is difficult, the images tough, the well-documented graphic imagery very hard to watch, and the characters not particularly likable.  Yet I was drawn into the film.  I cannot remember in the history of the cinema a more profound portrayal of grief and all its agonies than what Von Trier has given us here.

    This kind of brutally honest acting takes a great deal of courage, but Willem Dafoe has always been a brave actor, willing to do just about anything it takes to get to the heart of his characters. Twice he has been nominated for an Oscar, the first time for his doomed Elias in Oliver Stone’s “Platoon,” the second as Max Schreck, maybe a vampire, maybe not, in “Shadow of the Vampire.”

    In between he has given an array of superb performances, topped by his astonishing turn as the conflicted Messiah for Martin Scorsese in “The Last Temptation of Christ,” one of the most controversial films of the 1980s. Dafoe has never shied away from playing dislikable characters, such as his hateful Bobby Peru in “Wild at Heart,” but he can also be shockingly gentle, as we saw in “Tom and Viv.” He is the complete movie actor: as comfortable in blockbusters like “Spider-Man” as he is in independent cinema such as “Antichrist.” All he asks for is a challenge.

    (more…)

  • Stunning video for Charlotte Gainsbourg’s ‘Heaven Can Wait’

    Produced by and featuring Beck. Video directed by Keith Schofield. Reason #528 why I love Charlotte Gainsbourg. (Thanks to The Auteurs for the heads-up.)

    Meanwhile, Gainsbourg claims that she brought emotional baggage from the “Antichrist” shoot to the recording of her third album “IRM.” Should be an interesting listen.

  • David Poland’s Oscar underdogs … where are the ladies?

    Tilda Swinton in JuliaFor those of you bored of reading the same ever-narrowing list of names in the assorted Oscar-speculation pieces across the web, David Poland’s latest column is a slight breath of fresh air.

    Decrying the fact that many pundits are making ludicrous long-shot calls like “This Is It” for Best Picture, while ignoring more deserving contenders who could use the attention, Poland provides a list of less-hyped contenders in the top categories that he feels merit consideration.

    His definition of the term “underdog” ranges from genuinely fanciful contenders (Catherine O’Hara and James Gandolfini for “Where the Wild Things Are,” “In the Loop” for Best Picture) to names still very much in the race who  have lately lost a bit of steam (Matt Damon, Jeremy Renner and Viggo Mortensen, all in the Best Actor category).

    (more…)

  • ‘A Prophet’ dominates European Film Award nominations

    Tahar Rahim in A ProphetIs “A Prophet” gradually stealing awards-season momentum from “The White Ribbon?” (It’s the superior film, if you ask me.) Too soon to say, of course, but it certainly came out on top in this morning’s European Film Award nominations.

    Jacques Audiard’s searing chronicle of French prison gangs leads the field with six nominations, to four for Michael Haneke’s German Palme d’Or winner. The two films, seen by many pundits as the chief contenders for the foreign-language Oscar, also appear to be the frontrunners here, continuing a rivalry that started way back in May at Cannes.

    Also beating “Ribbon”‘s total, with five nods (six, if you include the People’s Choice Award), is “Slumdog Millionaire,” which didn’t make last year’s cut-off date. The film’s popularity clearly still lingers (to the point that it even eked out a Best Actor nod for Dev Patel, ahead of, say, Michael Fassbender), though I sense its moment has passed.

    (More discussion, and a full list of nominees, after the cut.)

    (more…)

  • TORONTO: Settling in, ‘Antichrist’

    (from left) Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg in AntichristI left home at 6:30am yesterday to make an early check-in to my hotel at 8:30.  One bummer, my youngest daughter, Ariana, has a flu bug and I hate leaving Sherri with her on her own. She assured me it was cool, so I managed to get out the door without being overwhelmed with guilt. Kissed the girls goodbye, loaded the van with my luggage and laptop and was Toronto-bound.

    Just over 90 minutes later (good traffic day) I pulled into the parking garage of the Delta, checked in and set my room up. I am very fussy about what the room looks like, where my stuff goes, my laptop, books and such, though within 10 minutes of the girls arriving Saturday, it all goes to hell.

    From here I head to the press office to get my pass.  Navigating the Sutton Place is hellish, as it is crawling with television crews already preparing for the day’s press conferences. Luckily the press office is away from the nightmare on the second floor.

    (more…)

  • VENICE: Swinton in ‘I Am Love,’ Gainsbourg in ‘Persecution’

    Tilda Swinton in I Am LoveIs any other actor today building as diverse a filmography as Tilda Swinton? After serving studio time last year in the one-two shot of “Burn After Button,” this year has seen hear frighten off the purple-rinsed Academy crowd that seemingly first noticed her in “Michael Clayton” with a defiant return to arthouse “difficulty” in “Julia” and “The Limits of Control.”

    Not content with that, it seems, she now shows off her linguistic skills with the wholly Italian-language lead in Luca Guadagnino’s extravagant family melodrama “I Am Love” — handily announcing herself as the film’s sole raison d’être in the first place. If the subtitles don’t unnerve her newfound mainstream following, the loving close-ups of her nipples just might. Good on her.

    Coincidentally enough, it’s been a morning of language-flipping crossover stars, as Charlotte Gainsbourg’s first post-“Antichrist” venture unspooled in the shape of Patrice Chéreau’s Competition entry “Persecution,” a Paris-set romantic drama that soothes the wounds inflicted upon the actress by Lars Von Trier, if not to terribly exciting effect. Short reviews after the jump.

    (more…)

  • 7/21 Web Round-up

    Meryl Streep in Julie & Julia• The forthcoming release of “Julie & Julia” delays author Julie Powell’s follow-up book. [New York Observer]

    • Seth Rogen takes “Entourage” (which is slowly jumping the shark this season) and its creators to task. [Movieline]

    • Going to Comic-Con?  Download the official iPhone app. [Apple]

    (more…)

  • ‘Antichrist’ vs ‘True Lies’

    Jamie Lee Curtis in True LiesOver at the Guardian, Michael Hann is rehashing an argument that, over the last two months, has become a very tired one indeed: that Lars von Trier hates women, that “Antichrist” is his most overtly misogynistic expression yet of said hate, shock, outrage, blah blah blah.

    As you know, the “misogyny” complaint is not one I have any time for, given that a) Von Trier is one of the few auteurs out there evincing a clear fascination with women in his work, b) the sympathies of “Antichrist” lie more with its emotionally riven female protagonist than her passive-aggressive husband, and c) the film’s gender politics serve principally to reinvigorate horror-film tropes.

    It’s something I discussed at greater length in my review of the film last month, but you can expect to hear the “m” word bandied about a lot more as the film bows in the UK next week.

    That said, even as he calls it “an expression of fear about female sexuality, with no greater purpose than the “Saw” or “Hostel” films,” Hann allows that greater offenders exist within the Hollywood system, with James Cameron’s 1994 actioner “True Lies” as his prime example.

    (more…)

  • REVIEW: “Antichrist” (***1/2)

    AntichristEdinburgh International Film Festival

    “I am the greatest director in the world,” Lars von Trier declared in an already notorious Cannes press conference following the unveiling of “Antichrist” in May.  Unable to resist such shameless baiting, most critics either responded with affectionate exasperation (“Oh, Lars!”) or, as one suspects von Trier preferred, tomato-faced indignation.

    What few did, however, was entertain the possibility that he might be telling the truth. It’s a conclusion that, even on the imperfect evidence of “Antichrist,” this viewer is willing to consider.

    Few contemporary filmmakers are as adept at arousing feeling as Lars von Trier – by which I refer not merely to the ingenious media-provocateur act he performs to market his work, but the actual excesses and polarities of emotion he mines within his own cinema.

    Von Trier’s best films arouse equal measures of devotion and resentment because they engage human empathy with no concessions whatsoever to conventional artistic standards of restraint or good taste; like their psychologically frail heroines – Bess in “Breaking the Waves,” Selma in “Dancer in the Dark,” Grace in “Dogville” – they teeter on the brink of self-destruction simply because they feel too much.

    I must slightly temper that argument upfront by admitting that “Antichrist,” as mercurial and bruising as it so often is, is not one of von Trier’s very best. Though it by and large meets the criteria described above – and its unnamed anti-heroine is a fascinating, near-parodic amalgamation of physical traits and psychological symptoms from all the director’s women – it lacks the emotional breadth of “Breaking the Waves,” or the formal and ideological conviction of “Dogville.” Unusually for von Trier, for all the film’s sledgehammer brutality in its concluding chapters, it’s rather coy about what it actually wants to say.

    (more…)

  • Von Trier: “I am the female character”

    Lars von TrierThere isn’t very much more I can say about the writhing can of worms that is “Antichrist” until I actually get to see the film. (Anyone who can make this happen, you know where to find me.) But it’s worth mentioning this interview with Von Trier in the Independent, if only because it draws attention to just how carefully the director planned the ensuing controversy, from that thematically tenuous title to his tongue-in-cheek press-conference posturing.

    One reader recently made the observation that Von Trier “much better at marketing his films than actually making them.” As someone who thinks he’s made at least three stone-cold masterpieces, I don’t entirely agree — but replace the words “much better at” with “as good as,” and we’re on the same page.

    He has a near-unrivalled knack for making commercially hostile films into the stuff of widespread dinner-party talk; even my friends who aren’t especially film-literate are now curious about “Antichrist.”For his part, Von Trier has no problem admitting the manipulation at play:

    There is no denying that von Trier is a provocateur. He describes the device as “a tool”. Saying he’s the best director, making challenging films, creating a furore has been his way of getting what are essentially small-budget films from Denmark noticed … Von Trier, for all his foibles, is definitely no fool and the secular characters are clearly in keeping with the perceived reduction of influence on religion in everyday life in Europe. Von Trier simply says, “I started with the title.”

    (more…)

  • OFF THE CARPET: Taking the temperature

    Jeremy Renner in The Hurt LockerIt’s somewhat surprising that our year-in-advance Oscar coverage is only three months old.  That now ancient list of predictions seems so long ago, and yet, even with Cannes behind us and this or that indication of a few of the contenders, I have no idea how to offer an educated update beyond general housekeeping.  The season, it seems, will remain elusive for just a little while longer.

    Here’s what we know: Critics didn’t respond to Universal’s “The Boat That Rocked” across the pond.  But the Brits hardly have a soft spot for Richard Curtis.  Along similar lines, Stephen Frears’s “Chéri” hasn’t exactly inspired either.  But both films, from awards savvy studios, could find a second wind when they eventually open Stateside.

    The biggest Oscar hopeful to emerge from this year’s Cannes fest is, in my opinion, Jane Campion’s “Bright Star.”  Heralded in some quarters as a return to form for the director, and snatched up by the intrepid Bob Berney (formerly of Picturehouse and now closing in on a name for his distribution company with partner Bill Polhad), the film could be a nominations hog, anywhere from six to 10 possibilities.  You’ll note all of my ponderings in that regard in the latest chart update below.

    (more…)

  • Haneke lands Palme d’Or, Gainsbourg takes Best Actress

    Charlotte Gainsbourg winning Best Actress at the Cannes Film FestivalAs it turned out, the most logical on-paper prediction turned out the be the right one. After emerging as the bridesmaid from several festivals past — winning the Grand Prix in 2001, Best Director in 2005 — the venerable Austrian auteur Michael Haneke has finally won the Palme d’Or for his stark moral drama “The White Ribbon.”

    Whether or not jury president Isabelle Huppert, a two-time Haneke leading lady in the past, wielded much influence on this decision — or indeed, whether she even needed to — is something for the pundits to debate. (I personally doubt it, though there was no mistaking the sly smile on her face as she announced his name at the podium.) Either way, there’s little denying that Haneke was overdue for world cinema’s highest honor; perhaps there was a career-achievement angle to the award, but the critical acclaim for “The White Ribbon” has been extensive.

    From watching the ceremony, it was clear that Haneke wasn’t the most popular winner of the night; that designation clearly goes to hometown favorite Jacques Audiard, whose “A Prophet” — like “Gomorrah” last year — was by and large deemed the favorite for the Palme, but ultimately had to be content with the silver-medal Grand Prix. The rousing standing ovation he received, however, spoke for itself. (I should add that a second-place finish for Audiard was, embarrassingly, the only correct call I made the whole night.)

    The real talking point of the awards, however, will likely remain Charlotte Gainsbourg’s Best Actress prize for her evidently courageous work in “Antichrist” — a clear gesture of support by the jury for a film that has provoked prolonged media outrage since its unveiling, and a blatant slap in the face of Cannes’ alternative ‘ecumenical’ jury who went out of their way to condemn it. The irony of handing a female performance award to a film that has been repeatedly pelted with accusations of misogyny is rather delicious; at the very least, it’s an indication that this is a film to be taken seriously.

    (More commentary, and a full list of winners, after the cut.)

    (more…)

  • What will take the Palme d’Or?

    Abbie Cornish and Ben Whishaw in Bright Star It’s all over bar the voting. Tomorrow, Cannes jury president Isabelle Huppert will meet with her formidable, female-dominated team of eight – including the diverse likes of Robin Wright Penn, Asia Argento, James Gray and Hanif Kureishi – to pick over the 20 Competition titles they have seen over the last fortnight and select their collective favorites.

    As I’ve said before, the most surprising thing a Cannes jury can do is not to surprise: to hand the Palme d’Or to the critical and/or popular favorite. It can happen, of course – critics and pundits alike called it for “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” the day it screened in 2007, and were proved right – but the list of upsets is long and illustrious.

    As you’ve probably heard by now, if the bookies have their way, French auteur Jacques Audiard will be brandishing the Palme this time tomorrow, his prison drama “A Prophet” having wowed critics and audiences across the Croisette. I’ll be delighted if he does, but I’ve questioned whether a French production can win two years running, after a two-decade drought to boot.

    Of course, such streaks aren’t unheard of: the U.S. held onto the Palme for three years between 1989 and 1991. Other questions running through my mind are whether Frenchwoman Huppert might want to avoid making the festival too much of a local affair, and whether Audiard’s all-male film will resonate as strongly with a mostly female jury.

    If not, there are a number of alternatives. By my count there are six titles seriously in the hunt for top honors. Michael Haneke’s “The White Ribbon” is fancied by many to finally land the director the top prize. Earlier today, the film made its presence felt by claiming the FIPRESCI critics’ prize for best in show, though it should be noted that the jury’s and FIPRESCI’s choices have only lined up three times this decade.

    (More speculation, and my final predictions, after the cut.)

    (more…)

  • Gainsbourg defends Von Trier

    Charlotte Gainsbourg Charlotte Gainsbourg seems so impossibly delicate in person that it’s hard to imagine her mutilating herself on camera. I suspect it’s even harder to watch — part of what makes her a canny choice as one of Lars Von Trier’s notoriously put-upon leading ladies.

    In this excellent video interview with the Guardian’s Xan Brooks (no embed available, unfortunately), given in the wake of the incensed media reaction to “Antichrist,” Gainsbourg intelligently defends her participation in the project, as well as her director’s intentions.

    She politely but firmly dismisses the accusations of misogyny levelled at Von Trier as “stupid,” and laughs off the idea that she was somehow exploited on camera. (“I was willing to do it, and I knew what I was doing.”) Most interestingly, Gainsbourg suggests that her character was intended to be reflective of the director himself:

    The character was called “She,” he was called “He.” So we had no identity, and the way Lars picked me, I had the impression that he knew nothing about me. He never talked about any film that I had done, nothing like that. So I didn’t have a clue why he chose me, but it gave me a kind of mystery of being this anonymous woman.

    I really trusted him, and that’s also a thing that I find unjust when people say that he hates women. Because I really had the impression that I was portraying him. That he was the woman. That he was going through that misery of physical condition and panic attacks and I related to him completely, and I had the impression that he related to me, in that he was understanding my feelings.

    It’s a measured, thoughtful interview in that Gainsbourg still seems to be coming to terms with the film herself. The video also offers some footage from the film that I hadn’t seen before — check it out here.