Cannes 2011 (Day 9 Predictions)

Palme D'Or:

Before the festival, I thought that one film had it all locked up: "The Tree of Life," by Terrence Malick, a director who had only won a Best Director prize at the festival over 30 years ago and who seemed due for more. However, that film's chances have drastically lowered since it actually premiered, and now I'd have to say that the movie retains an outside shot based on what it has left of its initial hype as well as the fact that the jury may be more sympathetic than some critics have been (however Gabe Klinger has heard otherwise).

My money is on the not-yet-shown "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia" by Nuri Bilge Ceylan, who really seems like he's got a shot at the big time this year, having won Best Director (as well as his actors having won Best Actor) in the past.

As for previously speculated films, I agree with Jason Solomons here, who says "Melancholia" ain't going nowhere (especially since Lars Von Trier, being such an enfant terrible, has lost the privilege of going to Cannes). Pedro Almodovar's "The Skin I Live In" got lackluster enough notices to lose its buzz. The Dardennes Brothers will not win a third Palme d'Or for "The Kid With A Bike." Sorry, not gonna happen. And Lynne Ramsay's "We Need to Talk About Kevin" has much better chances in the fields of Best Actress and Director, especially since Ramsay is not a festival veteran.

The biggest upset material comes in the form of "Le Havre" by Aki Kaurismaki, which many have been touting (to Mike D'Angelo's chagrin) and which could win a place in the hearts of the jury members. However, Kaurismaki I think might win a different award. And don't forget about "The Artist."

Gran Prix:

Now that I think "Once Upon A Time in Anatolia" will cop the top prize, room is left open for Paolo Sorrentino's "This Must Be the Place" to take second place. However, this could turn on a dime: when it screens for critics, there might not be a lot of love for Sean Penn's laconic, mumbly performance (and thus the whole enterprise will go down)-- or perhaps too much (Best Actor?). If that's the case, Nicolas Winding Refn's "Drive" might be able to get this. That is, unless it wins...

Jury Prize:

... third place. "Drive" seems tailor-made to win the festival's riskiest award (previous editions have given this to "Persepolis," "Thirst," and "Fish Tank").

Best Actor:

Without his film being rewarded, I think Brad Pitt will be given props for what has been called perhaps his strongest acting job in "The Tree of Life." If this happens, I think Pitt's a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination (maybe even a win?). Could the leads from "Footnote" make a resurgence? Possibly, but I think Pitt has it.

Best Actress:

Actresses tend to be easy to predict, and Tilda Swinton has stood as the frontrunner since the beginning of the festival, for her work in "We Need to Talk About Kevin." If she somehow doesn't win, I suspect Emily Browning from "Sleeping Beauty" will take it, although maybe "Melancholia"'s Kirsten Dunst will get the dividends of the Von Trier situation (Roger Ebert seems to think his deal will be an impediment, but I think that it might actually arouse sympathy in that the jury will think that Dunst is being canceled out). Cecile de France might continue the Dardennes winning streak (for "The Kid With A Bike") but I dunno.

Best Director:

A three person race: Kaurismaki vs. Ramsay vs. Michel Hazanavicius, who I think got enough positive reception for "The Artist" to receive recognition from the jury. Who thought he, as a late entrant and as a former spoof filmmaker, would ever get to being speculated for this award?

Best Screenplay:

This could go to "This Must Be the Place," should a fallout happen to its Gran Prix chances, "Le Havre," since it's a comedy, or "We Need to Talk About Kevin," for being an adaptation, but I really think this category is down (for various reasons) to "Footnote," "Hanezu," and "The Source." Any of these three could win it in the end, but right now I'm thinking that "Footnote" (written by its director, Joseph Cedar) has the best shot, despite the claims it's sometimes ridiculous.

To summarize:

Palme d'Or: Once Upon a Time in Anatolia

Gran Prix: This Must Be the Place

Jury Prize: Drive

Best Actor: Brad Pitt, The Tree of Life

Best Actress: Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin

Best Director: Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist

Best Screenplay: Joseph Cedar, Footnote

And I think "Miss Bala" might get something in Un Certain Regard.

Cave of Forgotten Dreams

Even though I had no other choice but to see "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" in 2-D, the film's repetitive imagery makes it a bit of a hard sit. It takes place in the French cave (discovered in 1994 and named Chauvet after one of the people who found it) where 32,000 year old paintings (as well as the fossils of now-extinct animals) are still preserved due to limited human interaction and calcification. Since this is an invaluable relic of a time so long ago, only some scientists are allowed to enter every so often. This is the only documentary film about this subject, which makes it singular and on some level a must-see. However, I wonder if one will enjoy it as much as admire what it means.

The 3-D probably is a big factor in that. If you see the 2-D version, as I did, there are several awkward shots that call attention to themselves to really no avail. In all likelihood, these were originally intended to be seen in 3-D. Maybe this restriction cost the film some of the power that it's been known to have. The color of the film also seems really off in 2-D, and we're lucky when some parts of the film skew to look like they came out of a Stella Artois commercial, as other portions (mostly those outside of the caves) look weirdly overexposed.

I had a hard time connecting with this film. Thinking of time periods that far apart is overwhelming, like thinking about singularities and "nothingness." It's practically impossible, at least to me. I was able to imagine it a little, but probably the experience of the film is far more worthwhile if you can somehow really connect to those times.

Werner Herzog, the esteemed director of this film (though maybe not quite as much after some of the stuff he made last decade), apparently includes shots of his crew because there's not enough space to keep them outside of the frame, but at the same time he sets up another sort of documentation. The cave painters painted what they saw, cave-bears sometimes scratched on the paintings, and now we, outside of the caves, are reacting to these works. He's also interested in the layering of the caves and the stories behind the paintings themselves. Though sometimes this seems like over-reading (I'm always one for keeping things little underexposed), I still can really see what he's getting at. The layering translates in the world of today: one of the scientists interviewed in the film was in the circus before he became a scientist. These bits, and the ending that people have thought a bit strange (but which is actually entirely necessary), give the film a strong ideological weight.

The film feels far too long, and includes some unnecessary footage: essentially irrelevant footage of a"master perfumer" (put in the film seemingly as an indulgence of Herzog) and, as noted above, maybe a little too much footage of the same paintings (such as the admittedly amazing "four horses" piece). There's also a sexual bent that the film has in parts that feels a little "politely immature," if you catch me, and thus, as a result of this and a couple other things, it's a little corny. But overall, this film has you in a place you'll never, ever go, and even though this film isn't extremely substantial and isn't entirely successful, this is a more worthwhile venture than those "Italy from your living room" trips. B-

The Double Hour

"The Double Hour" is a depressingly derivative film following a pair of two-dimensional characters (the kind who are defined by a single character trait, such as liking to swim or listening to bird calls) who seem to be darting into a serious relationship when they are interrupted at a crucial moment. It apparently has a thesis along the lines of Kryzsztof Kieslowski's frustrating but technically captivating "The Double Life of Veronique," but it doesn't ever really realize it. By leaving its parameters slightly obscured, it may leave the impression that there is a method to its montonous madness, but it doesn't even connect the dots to open up interpretations. It's a bleary film where we queasily view tropes that feel extremely familiar.

Giuseppe Capotondi's film has been much compared to "Tell No One," a mildly successful movie which many consider some sort of masterpiece. This is valid: "The Double Hour" rips off much of its predecessor's plot, imagery, and dialogue. To add to recycling that film's woozy, calm-before-the-blackout score, we even have the motif of the pop tune in English here (which is strange since neither film is in that language): whereas "Tell No One" featured U2's "With or Without You" in a bizarre interlude, here we have The Cure's "In Between Days." I'd recommend watching neither film, but if you had to choose, that one is stronger.

Anyways, we follow a hotel maid named Sonia who wants to find Mr. Right, one who'll distract her from her very depressing job (stumbling in on people committing suicide isn't out of the question). Speed-dating, she has one of those "meaningful conversations" with Guido, who apparently gives the owner a lot of business. They soon decide they're in love and go take walks in the woods and listen to bird sounds and stuff. But hold your horses: this ain't a romantic comedy or a film about their relationship (which would be not very interesting, since there's no real indication of their connection). They end up having picked the worst time to have a forest sojourn, as in a fumblingly handled scene, the estate on which they are chilling is pillaged. That's just where I'll stop, since that's where the poster and the reviews have drawn the line. I can't say I exactly understand the film's middle section, which ends up looking just like time killed (running time padding?) or its ending, which is strangely arresting in its inexplicability. I miss something? It's possible.

At the center of the film is Ksenia Rappaport, who won Best Actress at Venice two years ago. I don't know why that is, though, since she stumbles around as if in a trance, boringly stressed and polite. She's a cross between Kathy Griffin and the woman in this Waverly Films video in looks but not in performance style, which would have been insane but in some ways that would satisfy what this film needs. She stars alongside Benito Mussolini from "Vincere," Fillipo Timi, but it's really her movie and the film is simply as listless as she so often is. Save for one contrived-feeling but gripping first-person POV scene (that may be a rip off from a film I haven't seen), and tinges of interest worked up by the film's strange loose ends, "The Double Hour" fails to be as mundanely remarkable as the occurrence its title describes. C-

Circo

45 minutes longer than it should be (a bad thing for a movie that is only 75 minutes long), "Circo" showcases debut documentarian Aaron Schock's immense technical proficiency but also a lazy dependency on padding. Shooting against a beautiful background of sunsets and pastels, he charts a few months in the life of a family whose entire life is spent on their circus. It has glorious aspects to it, to be sure, but it also takes its tolls. The father, Tito, feels it is his calling to continue the circus in honor of his father (all of his other siblings have moved on), but his wife, Ivonne (who he ran off with at a young age), is sick and tired of the instability of the venture and worried that her kids are just as unsatisfied. They have been taught to do pretty amazing things, yet they are essentially illiterate and will have a hard time adapting to the world outside of the big top if they choose to leave.

The film drifts between unpretentious intimacy and cliched superficiality, and is much the lesser for the latter. Schock is not an intrusive filmmaker, but he still adorns the movie with trademarks of intrusive filmmakers (such as using too many captions and holding the film to a strict arc), and the film gets somewhat lost in that contradiction. Along with this misstep, Schock also doesn't keep a long enough focus on certain elements (such as the actual circus performing), and jumps around too much, showing us things not entirely related to the plot and giving us the same information again and again.

I hope that Schock gets his content flaws down before his next outing, because if he does, he may be a strong documentarian. But even though "Circo" has some good insight, it didn't grip me and as a result I was waiting impatiently for its conclusion. C+

Source Code

"Source Code" toys with profound thoughts, arrestingly subverts and traps you in its narrative structure (similarly but with higher stakes than the frequently compared "Groundhog Day"), contains moments of provocative dialogue, and builds a complex relationship between its main characters. However, it goes wrong somewhere along the way and, by the end, I felt like I was watching a film made out of a first draft of a screenplay. It needed to be revised and taken care of, not thrown together like it needed to make a deadline. There are so many different angles that this film could have taken on its plot, some of them cliche to be sure, but none quite as bizarrely murky as the one that it eventually decides on.

I'm actually okay with it not making sense, a problem that many people identified with the film. It works pretty well even though the ending doesn't entirely compute. It's just the slapdash lameness of the final line, the philosophies that the film decides to take on for the lack of time to explore more interesting ones, and the way that director Duncan Jones and his writer Ben Ripley seem to be struggling to find somewhere to pull out that make any such rationalizations useless.

The same thing happened with Jones' first film, "Moon," an extremely astonishing achievement of atmosphere and ideas that lacked the execution to work those things into a movie just as great, largely because of the confusion of its climax and ending. "Source Code" is throughout a better carried out film, and it uses many of "Moon"'s strengths (making the audience claustrophobic and thus creating an intense interest in the mechanics of the plot) to its advantage. But it has plenty of its own missteps.

Jake Gyllenhaal does work well in the lead role, applying a mix of incredulity, manners, and sarcastic menace to his character. However, he is somewhat shaky at times, as he is not an exceptional actor by any means, and his limitations don't let the movie get to where it could have gotten. He plays Cpt. Colter Stevens, who has gone straight from being the military to waking up on a train. He stumbles around, wondering what the hell is going on, since he's (apparently) been placed in medius res into an operation where he's taken someone else's body to find out who put the bomb on the train he's on, a man who has more attacks ready to go. Since he has no idea what his objective is the first time through, he cannot complete it, and only goes to alienate the woman he's traveling with, Christina Warren (Michelle Monaghan). Monaghan, who plays surprised often in this film, gives the film's strongest performance, making the contact she shares with Colter (or, as she knows him, Sean) feel like something to behold. She's what makes the film move through its weaker portions.

Maybe her character is more interesting because she's given in small doses, but in any event Monaghan is only in half of the scenes, and in the other half of the film, we are on our own. That's because we have to deal with the interplay between Gyllenhaal and Vera Farmiga, who fails to realize a potentially compelling role due to one of the dullest acting jobs I've seen in a while. I guess it's like that by design, but that doesn't change the fact that I dreaded her scenes. She plays Goodwin, one of the people behind the mission that Colter is undertaking. She is affectless and talks and behaves as if she hasn't been outside in a long time. No wonder she says she got divorced. She's joined by Jeffrey Wright, who enunciates words strangely and who isn't successful in making his crutch look like anything more than a slapped on character trait. He's there to sound cool explaining big concepts, but he's barely less stodgy than Farmiga. It doesn't help that the interior decorator of the Source Code facility hasn't upgraded the place up to the current digital era. It doesn't seem like anyone has heard of an Apple computer or a wireless keyboard. Perhaps this is done to both add analogue flavor and to further concentrate the suffocating spaces on us, but it doesn't work too well, and it just goes to underline even more that this is much boring section of the film.

So perhaps Gyllenhaal should be credited for livening things up a little bit thereabouts, along with the help of some nice compositions by Don Burgess, strong editing by Paul Hirsch (especially in the train section), and a (sometimes more than) serviceable score by Chris Bacon. But "Source Code" is another near miss by Jones, who has now twice danced near making a masterpiece but bowed out both times because he hasn't tightened the bolts. B-

Cannes 2011 Power Rankings: Selection Day Edition

Palme d'Or (Best Film):

1. The Tree of Life, Malick

2. Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, Ceylan

3. The Skin I Live In, Almodovar

4. Le Havre, Kaurismaki

5. We Need to Talk About Kevin, Ramsay

Just outside: Pater, Cavalier; This Must Be the Place, Sorrentino

Gran Prix (2nd place):

1. Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, Ceylan

2. We Need to Talk About Kevin, Ramsay

3. House of Tolerance, Bonello

4. Footnote, Cedar

5. Polisse, Le Besco

Jury Prize (3rd place):

1. House of Tolerance, Bonello

2. We Need to Talk About Kevin, Ramsay

3. Footnote, Cedar

4. Polisse, Le Besco

5. The Skin I Live In, Almodovar

Best Actor:

1. Lior Ashkenazi/Shlomo Bar-Aba, Footnote

2. Antonio Banderas, The Skin I Live In

3. Sean Penn, This Must Be the Place

4. Ryan Gosling, Drive

5. Nanni Moretti, We Have a Pope

Just outside: John C. Reilly, We Need to Talk About Kevin

Best Actress:

1. Tilda Swinton, We Need to Talk About Kevin

2. Noemie Lvovsky, House of Tolerance

3. Emily Browning, Sleeping Beauty

4. Elena Anaya, The Skin I Live In

5. Cecile de France, Boy With a Bike

Just outside: Cary Mulligan, Drive

Best Director

1. Maiwenn Le Besco, Polisse

2. Alain Cavalier, Pater

3. Lynne Ramsay, We Need to Talk About Kevin

4. Joseph Cedar, Footnote

5. Nicolas Winding Refn, Drive

Just outside: Takashi Miike, Hara-kiri: Death of a Samurai

Best Screenplay

1. Julia Leigh, Sleeping Beauty

2. Lynne Ramsay and Roy Kinnear, We Need to Talk About Kevin

3. Aki Kaurismaki, Le Havre

4. Radu Mihaileanu, The Source

5. Joseph Cedar, Footnote

Just outside: Pedro Almodovar, The Skin I Live In; Hossein Amini, Drive

Cannes 2011: Competition Preview

I've imposed an exile from Twitter on myself while writing this feature, so that these are my and only my reactions to the news about the festival today. (I will, however, use IMDb to get plot information.) Like last year, I want to evaluate my eagerness to see each film and each film's chance at winning awards, and I will do this in this feature. I won't tackle the sidebars (the main ones being Un Certain Regard and Director's Fortnight) for a couple of reasons: not knowing about them yields surprises later on in the year, and also, the work in covering each of those films on top of the Competition would be too hard.

So as to avoid delaying too long, here goes (organized by director's last name, as I'm getting this info from the press release):

The Skin I Live In (Pedro Almodovar, 120 minutes)

Almodovar is said to be pushing his comfort zone with this one, and I'm very excited. Apparently this one goes all out, and although "Broken Embraces" and "Volver" (the two films of his that I've seen; I know, I'm incredibly behind on his work) inspired uneasiness, I think this'll be in another ballpark. Antonio Banderas in the lead could really be something to behold, and my hopes are up that he'll turn in one of his better performances. All-in-all, one of my most anticipated films of the year. If I could pick a film from the Competition to watch right now, this would be towards the top. The plot summary from IMDb: "Based on Thierry Jonquet's novel "Mygale", this revenge tale tells the story of a plastic surgeon on the hunt for the men who raped his daughter."

Could it win the Palme? Certainly. With the abrasive tone and subject matter, it could be a bit of a stretch, but Almodovar is due for a Palme after coming to Cannes three times and winning Best Director and Screenplay.

House of Tolerance (Bertrand Bonello, 122 minutes)

I've never heard of this director before, which, as I've always said, creates the perfect arena to be blown away. Bonello does have some prior Cannes experience: his "Tiresia" was up for the Palme in 2003. The synopsis, from Films Distribution, is as follows: "At the dawn of the XXth century, in a brothel in Paris, a man disfigures a prostitute for life. She is marked with a scar that draws a tragic smile on her face. Around the woman who laughs, the life of other girls, their rivalry, their fears, their joy, their pain...From the external world, nothing is known. Their world is closed." I have really no clue what to say about that synopsis, but it sounds better than worse. The reviews will decide it for me.

Could it win the Palme? I'm thinking a Best Actress trophy for the portrayal of the prostitute in question is more likely to happen. If a major award is won for the film itself, it will be probably either the Grand Prix or Jury Prize, as it sounds like the type of film that would cop one of those, but I'm not too sure. It will probably not win the top prize.

Pater (Alain Cavalier, 105 minutes)

Another director I'm unfamiliar with, Cavalier has been in Competition a couple of times, winning the Jury Prize for "Therese" in 1986 (which won a bunch of Cesars as well). I cannot find any information on his new work, and thus I will have to wait until the Cannes website develops synopses (probably I should wait until then to do this feature, as it would have much more depth, but then again, I want to get something out today).

Could it win the Palme? On the basis of his previous Competition brushes, I would say that Cavalier could possibly walk out of the festival with either a Palme or a Best Director. And maybe the actor who plays the titular character (if it's a father) will get something? Who knows until we see the synopsis.

Footnote (Joseph Cedar, 105 minutes)

Cedar is best known for his Oscar-nominated film "Beaufort," which I haven't seen and which played Berlin a few years back. Never before in Competition, Cedar's new film, as described by IMDb, "the story of a great rivalry between a father and son, both eccentric professors in the Talmud department of Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The son has an addictive dependency on the embrace and accolades that the establishment provides, while his father is a stubborn purist with a fear and profound revulsion for what the establishment stands for, yet beneath his contempt lies a desperate thirst for some kind of recognition. The Israel Prize, Israel's most prestigious national award, is the jewel that brings these two to a final, bitter confrontation." I think this sounds very interesting, and I'm glad to see that an Israeli film is playing on the festival circuit's biggest stage.

Could it win the Palme? A Best Actor prize, dual or singular, is most likely, but other awards (the main three prizes, Best Director) are not out of the question.

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 150 minutes)

Now, here's an artist I know much about. I think his photography is (much) better than his filmmaking, but "Distant" was decent and "Climates" did look pretty nice as well. No plot summary yet, or at least not on the big sites, but nonetheless I'm glad to see a big new film from this guy.

Could it win the Palme? This is a film that I think has one of the biggest chances to get it. Ceylan won Best Director for "Three Monkeys" (unseen by me) and directed his leads to a dual Best Actor prize with "Distant." He's ready to take the next step.

Boy with a Bike (Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, 87 minutes)

I've seen two films by these guys ("The Son," "Lorna's Silence"), and their among my favorite filmmakers as a result. Experienced Competition veterans, the two have won the Palme TWICE and, on top of that, directed an actor to Best Actor and won Best Screenplay. These guys get something every time they bring a film in. The synopsis from IMDb: "Abandoned by his father, a young boy is left in the hands of an unqualified childcare provider." Whom, I'm assuming, is played by Cecile de France, who didn't really help the cause of "Hereafter" that much in my opinion. But who knows? I'm willing to go where the Dardennes take me, although this seems like something a little different than their usual (this production shot allays that especially).

Could it win the Palme? No. Not gonna happen. Three Palmes?! Nope. Best Actress is always a possibility, since the Dardennes seem to be on their way to being the first directors to win every single award available.

Le Havre (Aki Kaurismaki, 103 minutes)

A much noted filmmaker, I have never seen any of his films. He's won the Gran Prix (for "The Man Without a Past"), being nominated three times for the Palme. No synopsis as of yet, I don't think.

Could it win the Palme? Yes. This could be his year.

Hanezu No Tsuki (Naomi Kawase, 91 minutes)

Kawase's "The Mourning Forest" is a film I've been meaning to watch for a very long time, as it won the Gran Prix. No synopsis yet.

Could it win the Palme? Another definite possibility.

Sleeping Beauty (Julia Leigh, 104 minutes)

First films in Competition are rarities, and here is the first of two (!). Why is this here, since most filmmakers have to climb the ladder? Leigh is a "novelist" (according to Wikipedia) and (according to the Playlist) the screenplay was on the Black List. Synopsis as follows, from IMDb: "A haunting erotic fairytale about Lucy, a young University student drawn into a mysterious hidden world of beauty and desire." This movie has (minor) star power, with Emily Browning, famous for "Lemony Snicket," "The Uninvited," and (though she'd probably like to forget) "Sucker Punch." I don't know exactly what to think about this... Trailer is here, which tackily says that Jane Campion presents and then goes on to quote her in praise of the film.

Could it win the Palme? Best Actress for Browning is far more likely, as well as Best Screenplay.

Polisse (Maiwenn Le Besco, 121 minutes)

Like her sister Isild, Le Besco also first acted then directed, and here's her forth film, under the credit "Maiwenn." The synopsis from IMDb, goes as follows: "A journalist covering police assigned to a juvenile division enters an affair with one of her subjects." Okay-sounding.

Could it win the Palme? Yes. But after Mathieu Amalric won Best Director last year for his first feature helmed, Le Besco, in the same position as him with her first Competition entry, might win that award instead.

The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick, 138 minutes)

Do I need say anything about this? Everyone's most anticipated film of the festival. If you haven't heard about it, you've been living under a rock. Go find the synopsis and watch the unbelievable trailer on your own (partially because I don't want to expose myself to the former just yet). One note: I thought this film would be much longer. My friend says he knows that it was cut down, but this still seems short for a film this ambitious.

Could it win the Palme? THIS WILL WIN. No question. I thought they would play fair and play it outside, but since not, it's got it in the bag, especially with Robert De Niro as the jury head (although he runs TriBeCa, he has a bias towards American cinema) and with Malick having never won the Palme before (though having won Best Director the only other time he bowed in competition, in 1978 for "Days of Heaven"). The rug could be pulled out from underneath, but this is the frontrunner as of yet and the Goliath to everyone else's David.

The Source (Radu Milhaileanu, 135 minutes)

Known to me from his mediocre-sounding, Golden-Globe nominated "The Concert," Milhaileanu has scored the first Competition birth of his career. And this sounds just as mediocre, from the synopsis given by IMDb: "A comedy/drama set in a village and centered on a battle of the sexes, where women threaten to withhold sexual favors if their men refuse to fetch water from a remote well." The full translation of the French title is "The Source of Women."

Could it win the Palme? Possibly. But comedies don't usually win.

Harakiri: Death of a Samurai (Takashi Miike, 126 minutes)

Totally unexpected to see Miike get in (especially with Brilliante Mendoza, Lou Ye, and Giorgos Lanthimos nowhere to be found). Reportedly the first 3D entry ever in Competition, this is crazy shit, which can only be expected on a regular basis from Miike, who himself has never played in the big dance before. Synopsis from Ropeofsilicon.com goes as follows: "Set during the 17th century, the story centers on Hanshiro (played by Ebizo Ichikawa), an honorable, poverty-stricken samurai requesting to commit hara-kiri in the courtyard of feudal lord Kageyu's estate. Trying to dismiss Hanshiro's wish to save face, Kageyu (played by Koji Yakusho) recounts the tragic story of a similar plea years ago from young ronin Motome (played by Eita). But the arrogant lord is unaware of vengeful Hanshiro's bond to Motome." Ok, I'm mildly interested.

Could it win the Palme? Probably not, but, in a move of wild card insanity, maybe.

We Have a Pope/Habemus Papam (Nanni Moretti, 102 minutes)

"A story centered on the relationship between the newly elected Pope and his therapist." (IMDB). Um, what does that sound like to you? A comparison that has already been made, but needs be noted. Not too interested. Nanni Moretti stars and does his thing, apparently.

Could it win the Palme? Well, maybe this template won't win another major award, but who's counting? Most likely, though, Moretti will sit this one out, having won the Palme before.

We Need to Talk About Kevin (Lynne Ramsay, 110 minutes)

I've never seen "Morvern Callar" or "Ratcatcher," but I've heard great things about them, and thus I'm looking forward to Ramsay's new film. "The mother of a teenage boy who went on a high-school killing spree tries to deal with her grief -- and feelings of responsibility for her child's actions -- by writing to her estranged husband." says IMDb. Admittedly, it sounds corny, but with John C. Reilly, Tilda Swinton, and "Afterschool"'s Ezra Miller, it could work. But...

...could it win the Palme? Most definitely. She's gone through the Cannes system, and now could be her time. Keep in mind: these are relative statements, since I think "Tree of Life" holds an overwhelming lead. And Swinton or John C. Reilly could pull something out as well.

Michael (Markus Schleinzer, 94 minutes)

The other debut, about which there is no information. Apparently Schleinzer acted as casting director on a bunch of films and appeared in "The Robber." No synopsis on the major sites.

Could it win the Palme? An out-of-nowhere upset? Unlikely, though it would be interesting.

This Must Be the Place (Paolo Sorrentino, 118 minutes)

Relatively high-profile as these things go, Sorrentino's latest feature length film (after "Il Divo," which won the Jury Prize a while back as well as a nomination for Best Makeup at the Oscars) has Sean Penn at his most garish-looking. Derived from the title of a great Talking Heads song, the synopsis here comes from IMDb. DON'T READ IF YOU WANT TO GO IN COLD: "Cheyenne, a wealthy former rock star (Penn), now bored and jaded in his retirement embarks on a quest to find his father's persecutor, an ex-Nazi war criminal now hiding out in the U.S. Learning his father is close to death, he travels to New York in the hope of being reconciled with him during his final hours, only to arrive too late. Having been estranged for over 30 years, it is only now in death that he learns the true extent of his father's humiliation in Auschwitz at the hands of former SS Officer Aloise Muller - an event he is determined to avenge. So begins a life-altering journey across the heartland of America to track down and confront his father's nemesis. As his quest unfolds, Cheyenne is reawakened by the people he encounters and his journey is transformed into one of reconciliation and self discovery. As his date with destiny arrives and he tracks down Muller, Cheyenne must finally decide if it is redemption he seeks ....or revenge. Starring two time Academy Award winner Sean Penn and marking the much-anticipated English-language debut of acclaimed director Paolo Sorrentino, THIS MUST BE THE PLACE is a gripping examination of a man on the precipice of obsession." Interesting stuff.

Could it win the Palme? Yes, but Best Actor, with Penn going-for-broke, could happen.

Melancholia (Lars Von Trier, 130 minutes)

The trailer is here, and I've said that this movie looks like "Birth" meets "Another Earth" meets "Antichrist." An interesting combo, to be sure, and this looks like prime Von Trier, especially with the logo at the end. IMDb says: "Two sisters find their relationship challenged as a nearby planet threatens to collide into the Earth." But I'm only moderately anticipating, as I have some minor issues with what it seems to be.

Could it win the Palme? Unlikely. This is just a trip to the Crosiette for Von Trier, and I don't think it'll play very competitively, since Von Trier has already won for "Dancer in the Dark." Expect some gasps to be drawn, though maybe not as many as from "Antichirst."

Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn, 95 minutes)

I've highly disliked both of the films I've seen by this guy ("Bronson" and "Valhalla Rising"), a hipster standby who gets by on little more than hyperstylized violence. Thus, you may be surprised to hear that I'm willing to give this guy another shot with "Drive," which sounds good (again via IMDb): "A Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a wheelman discovers that a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong." Ryan Gosling and Cary Mulligan are the leads, and the film is adapted from a book by James Sallis. I'm looking forward to it, but if this is a dud, I don't know if I can offer any more of my time to Refn.

Could it win the Palme? I would say no, mostly due to the genre but also because this guy hasn't played many major competitions (save Sundance).

Here are my first predictions for the awards (to be expanded into power rankings soon):

Palme d'Or: "The Tree of Life," Terrence Malick

Gran Prix: "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia," Nuri Bilge Ceylan

Jury Prize: "House of Tolerance," Bertrand Bordello

Best Actor: Lior Ashkenazi and Shlomo Bar-Aba, "Footnote"

Best Actress: Tilda Swinton, "We Need to Talk About Kevin"

Best Director: Maiwann (Le Besco), "Polisse"

Best Screenplay: Julia Leigh, "Sleeping Beauty"

As for Un Certain Regard, I'm looking forward to "Loverboy" by Mitulescu, "Arirang" by Kim, and the year's Sundance film, "Martha Marcy May Marlene" by Durkin.

More to come, people.

City of Life and Death

"City of Life and Death" finds its biggest success in its tremendous handling of large-scale scenes. With intense cross-cutting and strong use of the close-up, Lu Chuan finds a way to get across many a POV in a scene where it seems hard. In doing this, he imbues these moments with a remarkable intimacy. However, when the film observes a naturally personal episode, it can't quite get the tone right, and it ends up feeling superficial and sudsy.

Even though it takes a while for it to get a coherent rhythm down, and even though it sometimes diverges into corny subplots involving sentimentalized prostitution, "City of Life and Death" still manages to give you an extremely startling sting. I shook as I watched this film, which displays a large amount of arbitrary cruelty, which makes shreds out of lives and bodies.

We see the Japanese come into Nanking, China, and not only take the city, but proceed to execute, separate, and commit other horrible acts upon the people living there. Referred to as the Rape of Nanking for a definite reason, this is a period in WWII that I was unaware of before I heard about this film and the documentary "Nanking." I wonder what other elements of this and other wars film is yet to cover.

The film follows various characters more than others, mostly from the Chinese side. One exception is Kadokawa (Hideo Nakaizumi), a member of the Japanese military who feels some remorse for the horrible things that he does, unwittingly and not. He also becomes attached to a "comfort woman"; cue the subpar dramaturgy aforementioned. We also have, among others, Miss Jiang (Yuanyuan Gao), who is dedicated to the survival of the population of Nanking; Mr. Tan (Wei Fan), a man working for and living under the protection of a visiting Nazi (John Paisley); and a revolutionary (whose name I cannot find), who does what he feels must be done.

Filmed for a good reason in b&w, and with a score that at times hits, despite some wrong notes, the exactly right ones, "City of Life and Death" stands as a strong work that will inform and disquiet. It definitely could have been better in a multitude of areas, but it operates often on a level that transcends its shortcomings. B+

My Joy (Philadelphia Cinefest)

I had big expectations for Sergei Loznitsa's "My Joy," a Cannes 2010 Competition film that piqued my interest from early on and has held it for the 11 months since then. Unfortunately, when I got to seeing it, it began to lose it. This is a film where a little tightening up would go a long way, as it develops a weighty thesis for much of its running time but loses its focus too often to come through. It is also an extremely dispiriting work, and its final scene sears with its notion of irreparability. If you don't want to be emotionally rocked, do not see this film. If you're sensitive, you may come out with some sort of scar. At the same time, it both is and isn't as harsh as people have said it is. You have been warned.

If you're okay with that... This film follows Georgy (Viktor Nemets, channeling sincerity and apathy), a trucker with a flour shipment who, after getting stuck in a traffic jam, travels with a girl prostitute (played pretty well by Olga Shuvalova) back to her hometown so he can get to where he's going faster. His sojourn, intended to take a day at most, ends up costing him much more time than he imagined and also goes to highlight that he wasn't really going anywhere in the first place.

The (nameless) town where he stops is the archetypal town which no one leaves, where people stop to lay low and end up staying forever. Loznitsa is perhaps somewhat trying to move people to action with this film, in a sort of Sherman Alexie-esque sort of way, but instead of showing positive action, Loznitsa instead is observing its counterpoint, crippling lethargy.

Georgy just centers the film, which operates in the way of Richard Linklater's "Slacker," by moving around to follow the people who come into contact with him. We see a man who was forever broken by the execution of his father by returning soldiers, and the execution of officers by a major who loses everything, including his fiancee and his name, as a result (due to his hiding away in the town). These characters foreshadow the person Georgy will eventually become. Their stories are dealt with in scenes set in the time of Second World War, shot with lenses and costumes that remind one of Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" and Elia Suleiman's "The Time That Remains." This chronological scramble offers opportunities for Loznitsa opportunities for creating disorientation, and the fact that you don't know when the winter of the film's final third takes place is interesting.

The film's strongest asset in disorientation (and otherwise, perhaps), though, is Oleg Mutu's camera. It pulsates with intensity as it watches characters, and constantly favors busy compositions that are uncommon in cinema. At certain points, the screen shows many different actions occurring at once, which creates both the feeling of spontaneity and contrivance. There is also some beautiful embellishment of strange developments in the plot, such as a sex scene that is more interesting because it can't be entirely understood. (The art direction in the deteriorating house where it takes place is also sterling.)

So there's a lot going on here. It just doesn't all work. If this film was 10-15 minutes shorter (I would cut the scene in the prison and the one with the soldiers carrying the coffin), it would be much more successful. If it understood when to, as critics have said of it, lay it on thick and when to restrain itself, it would pack an better punch, betting meaning harder on an ideological level. But instead it pulls on too long and leaves you on the floor with your wind knocked out, locking the doors and leaving no one to assist you. I hope that "In the Fog of Latvia," Loznitsa's next work (set to be his second as a fiction filmmaker after many documentaries), proves more refined. B-

The Robber (Der Rauber)

"The Robber" by Benjamin Heisenberg follows a man who simultaneously strives for recognition and wants to stay anonymous. He's a runner-cum-bank robber, Johann Rettenberger, and when he's released from prison on parole (after serving a sentence for armed robbery), he continues to be both of those things. He ascends in the sport out of nowhere (making his parole officer happy), and seems as if he could be poised for great things. But he is tied down by his theft, which leads him to steal cars (sometimes right under their owners' noses) and sometimes, rather sadistically, to leave people stranded in random locations for safety's sake. Yet, in retrospect, these events are pretty much inconsequential to the film and the character's arc. This goes to show how disconnected the film is; it really has little clue what it's about with a name like "The Robber."

The film is centered around Andreas Lust's performance in the lead. His sense of desperation helps the film out quite a bit, but at the same time, his insecurity in the role can be seen, especially in the scenes with the parole officer, where he verges on histrionics. This is a role where the actor has to be impeccable, and Lust, despite being strong, falls short. But he doesn't have the best support in the world, either: Heisenberg, working from a fictionalized novel by Martin Prinz (who collaborated on the screenplay), can't do much with banal plot developments, like a subplot with an obligatory love interest (Franziska Weisz) who obviously ends up causing a bit of trouble for Johann, and the film thus takes its place alongside the other films of the genre.

That's not to say it doesn't have its perks. There are some quite disarming moments. For example, one scene, set in a movie theater, does a lot by going "Shirin"-style and not showing the film playing, but only focusing on Johann and his girlfriend, and the effect is nicely curious. And, in general, the film's cinematography and lighting are stunning. There is bravura motion photography, and there are also more than a couple striking images, such as a follow shot that creates an extremely disorienting effect. Much of the film looks like it was painted. But that only partially makes up for the film's narrative fumbling, and the final shot is nowhere near as powerful as it could have been. Maybe remaking the film in America, with a younger actor (Andrew Garfield), will lead to greatness, but the parts will probably not be in order, and I think we'll have to simply regard "The Robber" and long for what could have been. C+