Palme d'Or winners

email this story
read comments (73)
post a comment

The Cannes jury has officially stiffed the Joel and Ethan Coen' highly praised No Country for Old Men, largely, I suspect, because it 's not very women-friendly and therefore didn't go over with the youngish females on the jury -- actresses Maggie Cheung and Toni Collette, director-actress Maria de Medeiros and director-actress Sarah Polley. The Palme d'Or went instead went to a deeply admired, very fine abortion movie -- Christian Mungiu's 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days.

The Grand Prix (a runner-up award) was handed to Naomi Kawase's The Mourning Forest

Julian Schnabel won the Best Director prize for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, and Gus Van Sant...oh, give me a break! Gus wins a special Prix du 60th Anniversaire for his direction of Paranoid Park, his least focused, least arresting, least persuasive film in years? Words fail.

Faith Akin won the Best Screenplay Award for The Edge of Heaven, and Anton Corbijn's Control won a Camera d'Or Special Mention. There was a tie for the winner of the Prix du Jury prize -- Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis and Carlos Reygadas' Stellet Licht were the neck-and-neckers.

Venetian rainstrom<< previous | next >>Two Lennon-death flicks

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on May 27, 2007 at 11:39 AM

comment #1

Gaydos says ...

Au contraire, mon ami!

Paranoid is brilliantly focused. If I have one complaint with the film, it's that the portrait is the whole picture. It lacks what we hacks call story development, but it's clearly a perfection of the approach that gus has been tinkering with from gerry through elephant to paranoid. Not for every taste, but lyrical and incisive, masterful in its own way, certainly original and fresh, a great collaboration between its filmmaker, d.p. and cast of unknowns.

Also....here's a feckless plea: can we skip boxoffice prognostications just for this one day and ruminate on the quality of the films like paranoid and the other films it was up against? Don't know what any of the best films I saw will make out in the real world, but in the Palais dark, they were a wonderful tonic to the blockbusters of summer happening out in the "real" world.

Pretty damn good year for Cannes by most accounts. I'm still pondering the art and meaning of several of the best films I saw there.

Any hits? Let's leave that spadework until Tuesday! I know, I'm dreaming.....

Posted by Gaydos at May 27, 2007 12:15 PM

comment #2

D.Z. says ...

"The Cannes jury has officially stiffed the Joel and Ethan Coen' highly praised No Country for Old Men, largely, I suspect, because it 's not very women-friendly and therefore didn't go over with the youngish females on the jury --"

Yes, unwanted orphans born from near-sighted family-planning policies is a chick issue, and not an issue which affects the public at large. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html?nav=rss_politics/administration

Posted by D.Z. at May 27, 2007 12:21 PM

comment #3

JD says ...

You do realize, Jeff, that many of your film journalist peers praised the hell out of Paranoid Park. But then, I guess they're elitist snobs, right?

Posted by JD at May 27, 2007 12:41 PM

comment #4

Rob says ...

Wow. How offensive.

Posted by Rob at May 27, 2007 12:56 PM

comment #5

Gaydos says ...

i'll add my voice to the chorus on jeff's "single chicks theory."

maybe, when it comes to opposing views of movies, there is no grassy knoll. no conspiracy of dunces, girls or elite snobs.

Fer instance: maybe it's not that america is bereft of any taste, but maybe "grindhouse" didn't work as art or commerce. both juries (cannes and Yank audiences) have spoken. hmmmm...

maybe zodiac didn't work for america's unwashed moviegoers AND didn't work for the cannes jury for the same reasons and they had to do with the film's shortcomings and merits and the former damaging the appreciation of the latter.

maybe "no country" didn't work for the jury because they compared it to offerings from around the world that felt more ambitious, more bracing, more challenging, more moving, more accomplished in both intent and execution.

My humble suggestion: when you disagree with the jury's collective appreciation of a film, pause just a few seconds before posting the dubious "blame it on those lightweights girls of the jury" thesis. you might find other more logical, less crackpot ways to explain the decisionmaking process. but what fun would that be?

Posted by Gaydos at May 27, 2007 1:11 PM

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

Gaydos: I'm thinking Zodiac and Death Proof didn't win, because audiences want more than just crime and homage flicks nowadays. It used to be a cg monster was the overused cliche in the industry, but now it's the smart-ass gangster.

Posted by D.Z. at May 27, 2007 1:23 PM

comment #7

qwiggles says ...

Not sure I subscribe to the "4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days won because Sarah Polley does not have testicles" theory.

Posted by qwiggles at May 27, 2007 1:29 PM

comment #8

jimjonesiii says ...

"No Film for Young Chicks", by Grumpy Old Welles, didn`t win anything either.

Posted by jimjonesiii at May 27, 2007 2:12 PM

comment #9

christian says ...

you could just as easily surmise that men prefer NO COUNTRY because it's not female-centric and focuses on tough male love.

Posted by christian at May 27, 2007 2:13 PM

comment #10

Bilge says ...

A more sane explanation would be that the Jury didn't have too much interest in throwing their big awards at American studio films that have either already gotten, or are sure to get, plenty of international exposure.

Of course, since many people covering Cannes seem interested in primarily the American films, often the idea that there is a whole other world of filmmaking out there gets lost...until, of course, it rears its ugly head during the awards ceremony.

Posted by Bilge at May 27, 2007 2:19 PM

comment #11

JD says ...

Gaydos, your argument is flawed because simply getting into the Cannes competition is a giant show of support from the international film community. It's an award in its own right. Beyond that, while Zodiac and Grindhouse (not Death Proof) failed at the US box office, they succeeded with critics and the audiences who saw them (they have incredibly high imdb ratings of 8.2 and 8.5 respectively). Also, there's no proof that the jury disliked these films, they just chose not to give them one of the 6 or 7 awards they hand out. Plus, let's be honest: films like these are at a natural disadvantage. Like We Own the Night and No Country For Old Men, Death Proof and Zodiac are mainstream, narrative genre films made by disciplined cinematic stylists (or evil Americans, depending on who you ask), a type that is under-represented on this year's jury (I'm a big fan of Stephen Frears, but he's always had a perfunctory visual style).

And if DZ is planning on adding David Fincher to his list-of-people-to-rant-against-on-a-daily-basis, he can fuck right off. I'm not Fincher's biggest fan or anything, but any single movie fan who shows disdain for both Fincher and Tarantino needs to get a job in a video store or something.

Posted by JD at May 27, 2007 2:25 PM

comment #12

JB Moore says ...

Where were the smartass gangsters in Zodiac and Death Proof? Did I miss something?

Posted by JB Moore at May 27, 2007 2:32 PM

comment #13

p.Vice says ...

Did Jeffrey even SEE any of the award-winning films beyond the obvious? Secret Sunshine? Mourning Forest? Silent Light?

I love how he still gets miffed when he saw maybe a third of the competition lineup at best. That's total coverage for ya.

Posted by p.Vice at May 27, 2007 2:34 PM

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

JD: "Gaydos, your argument is flawed because simply getting into the Cannes competition is a giant show of support from the international film community."

Anyone can buy their way in there nowadays.

"Beyond that, while Zodiac and Grindhouse (not Death Proof) failed at the US box office, they succeeded with critics and the audiences who saw them(they have incredibly high imdb ratings of 8.2 and 8.5 respectively)."

Actually, even Tarantino fans were mixed on Grindhouse. And the same critics who liked Zodiac were panning Fight Club, which shows how little their reviews matter.

"Like We Own the Night and No Country For Old Men, Death Proof and Zodiac are mainstream, narrative genre films made by disciplined cinematic stylists"

Mainstream to whom, exactly?

"And if DZ is planning on adding David Fincher to hislist-of-people-to-rant-against-on-a-daily-basis, he can fuck right off."

I'm sorry, but if he's going to do another serial killer movie, he should cast someone with more presence and range than Gyllenhaal. And how the fuck did Zodiac cost $85 million, when Se7en was only $30 million?

"I'm not Fincher's biggest fan or anything, but any single movie fan who shows disdain for both Fincher and Tarantino needs to get a job in a video store or something."

No, I just need to be entertained, not bored by directors who don't have a sense for pacing.

JB: If they're not gangsters, then they're just killers. Either way, it's the same jerk-off approach that Van Sant did for the Psycho remake. (Which QT liked btw.)

Posted by D.Z. at May 27, 2007 2:43 PM

comment #15

JD says ...

"Mainstream to whom, exactly?"

Mainstream to people like you, DZ, who will pay to see Zodiac and Grindhouse in the theatre, but ignore movies like The Wind That Shakes the Barley and 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days. They may not have done Wild Hogs numbers, but I don't think anyone's mistaking Zodiac or Grindhouse for The Mourning Forest.

"And how the fuck did Zodiac cost $85 million, when Se7en was only $30 million?"

What are you, a studio executive? Who cares how much it cost? I can't see how a cheaper version of Zodiac would have been better. And no, I don't think Seven is a) a cheaper version of Zodiac or b) better.

Posted by JD at May 27, 2007 3:07 PM

comment #16

Josh Massey says ...

No Country For Old Men's greatest sin was that it was American.

Posted by Josh Massey at May 27, 2007 3:16 PM

comment #17

Rob says ...

Well, Josh, just four years ago the American-made Elephant became the first film ever to win three awards at Cannes (including the Palme d'Or), so I dunno about that...

Posted by Rob at May 27, 2007 3:32 PM

comment #18

JB Moore says ...

"If they're not gangsters, then they're just killers. Either way, it's the same jerk-off approach that Van Sant did for the Psycho remake. (Which QT liked btw.)"

DZ - What does Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of "Psycho" have to do with any of this?

Posted by JB Moore at May 27, 2007 3:47 PM

comment #19

JD says ...

Correction, Rob: Elephant only won two of the official awards. And several years earlier, Barton Fink won three. Still, it's pretty clear that this year's jury -- every Cannes jury is different -- was not having any of this American narrative filmmaking stuff. Paranoid Park was acceptable because it was so clearly not narrative (aka "art"), but the others could all be dismissed as conventional entertainment (by people with an aversion to that sort of thing). That said, I'm anxious to see all of these films and I'm sure the lesser known international films will be just as good as their American counterparts. That's usually the case.

Posted by JD at May 27, 2007 4:16 PM

comment #20

AbeGoldfarb says ...

The D.Z. problem continues...I think he's actually baiting us now. He can't believe half the shit he posts. It's like someone who reads the New York Post and regurgitates that jackhole Kyle Smith. There were no smart-ass gangsters or killers in Zodiac (please, PLEASE tell me how there was any glibness at all in that film), D.Z. And only one smart-ass killer in Death Proof, who turned out, in a rather unfashionably unglib twist, to be a bit of a damaged crybaby.

Anyway, all arguments should cease over D.Z.'s knowledge of cinema following the rather delightful post he made on an Asian film board some months back referring to "Japanese cinema master Zhang Yimou". Yep, good old Mandarin language Mainland China-born-and-based...Japanese...Zhang Yimou.

Idiot. Maybe that video store idea isn't half bad.

Anyway, too bad for the Coens, but I'm keen to see all of the awarded films. It sounds like a rich pack this year after a bit of a dry spell.

Posted by AbeGoldfarb at May 27, 2007 4:45 PM

comment #21

AbeGoldfarb says ...

Idiot. Maybe that video store idea isn't half bad.

Anyway, too bad for the Coens (though I love them over most other directors, misfires and all), but I'm keen to see all of the awarded films. It sounds like a rich pack this year after a bit of a dry spell.

Posted by AbeGoldfarb at May 27, 2007 4:45 PM

comment #22

soap-and-water says ...

anyone who disagrees with jeff's chick-centric dice up on the jury's decision is obviously pretty ill-informed.
this WAS a femme-heavy jury and his IDing it is a very perceptive call.
frears would have lit up watching the coens though, it's definitely a rush of blood to the head for anyone who knows their genre stuff.

Posted by soap-and-water at May 27, 2007 4:47 PM

comment #23

AbeGoldfarb says ...

Erg, accidental double post due to attempting to rectify Coens slight...

Posted by AbeGoldfarb at May 27, 2007 4:47 PM

comment #24

Gaydos says ...

Not sure I buy the Cannes jury vs Americans since there's a long history of major awards to the Yanks, including Apocalypse Now, sex, lies & videotape, Barton Fink, Wild at Heart, Pulp Fiction, elephant, to name a few. Even this year's competition, with Death Proof, No Country for Old Men, Paranoid Park, We Own the Night, Zodiac would seem to indicate an appreciation for U.S. filmmaking. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Posted by Gaydos at May 27, 2007 4:51 PM

comment #25

D.Z. says ...

Abe: "Anyway, all arguments should cease over D.Z.'s knowledge of cinema following the rather delightful post he made on an Asian film board some months back referring to "Japanese cinema master Zhang Yimou". Yep, good old Mandarin language Mainland China-born-and-based...Japanese...Zhang Yimou."

That was someone spoofing me.

Posted by D.Z. at May 27, 2007 4:54 PM

comment #26

Flyertaxi says ...

Daniel Zelter is in his late twenties, lives in LA with his mom, goes to screenings with her, is unemployed, and is in very bad shape physically. Facts verified from other sources.

Posted by Flyertaxi at May 27, 2007 5:06 PM

comment #27

wda says ...

All of that is very shocking.

Posted by wda at May 27, 2007 7:10 PM

comment #28

JeffGP says ...

All anger on this post, for once, should not be directed at D.Z., but at Wells for making one of the most boneheadedest and flat-out mean deductions of year.

Posted by JeffGP at May 27, 2007 8:11 PM

comment #29

Gaydos says ...

soap and water: "femme heavy" jury in what way? as opposed to every year when there are at least three women and often four women on the jury, just like this year?

or are the women this year heavier?

or more femme?

i didn't realize that "femmes" voted with such solidarity and not sure why they wouldn't give Javier Bardem an award. He has such a pretty hairstyle in the film. "Femmes" are supposed to go for that sort of thing, aren't they?

I'm just trying to follow your "well-endowed logic" here.

explain, please, to all of us "pretty ill-informed" folks who think making the equation of "0 awards for coens = blame it on the femmes" is kind of...."b.s. heavy."

Of course, if you were on the jury, I withdraw (almost) all of my sarcasm.

Posted by Gaydos at May 27, 2007 8:34 PM

comment #30

Jayne Gacey says ...

David Fincher is arguably one of the masters of pacing working in cinema today. Name me anything in cinema this year better directed than Zodiac. Seriously.

Posted by Jayne Gacey at May 27, 2007 10:07 PM

comment #31

Jayne Gacey says ...

Also I'm sick of everyone ragging on Gyllenhaal. Yes, it's true that Ruffalo and Downey do circles around him, but his Graysmith really sneaks up on you.

Posted by Jayne Gacey at May 27, 2007 10:14 PM

comment #32

soap-and-water says ...

a big sigh goes your way gaydos. jeff IDs a block of four young or youngish women on the jury and I offer up a 'good thinking!' post.
'femme-heavy' seems like adequate shorthand for the situation. that's it.
And yes, femmes do respond to hairstyles more strongly than men, but they often respond to costumes more strongly than hairstyles; No Country has very few wardrobe changes.
As i said, Jeff's analysis has produced a solid theory for why an exceptional bit of moviemaking was completely overlooked.
and no, i wasn't on the jury but i was at the festival. 'twas a hoot!

Posted by soap-and-water at May 28, 2007 1:33 AM

comment #33

Craptastic says ...

Wells, maybe we'd be with you if your coverage was more indepth. You wrote about maybe three or four movies you saw, some press conferences... and everything else is simply snapshots of France, a girl that enticed you, etc.

Then we're left here to hear about your travels to Italy. What does that have to do with movies? There's a reason you are not taken seriously... you'd rather talk about your life on this site than what you're paid to do (in your own words, your "hard earned money")... which is to write about movies.

I'm no fan of Poland (based mostly on differences of opinion/taste)... but at least he sticks to the subject and doesn't run off on bizarre rants about the state of public schools in CT or how much its raining in Venice.

I come to this site for one reason only... to get the inside scoop on film. And, to their much deserved credit, I get more info from the people who READ your site (the 'talkbackers') than from you.

Just stick with the subject at hand and we'll all do fine.

Posted by Craptastic at May 28, 2007 2:17 AM

comment #34

OddDuck says ...

Craptastic, who are you to proclaim that Wells isn't taken seriously? Did you take a poll? Or is this a Craptastic proclamation? I think a better way to put it is something like: "I, Craptastic the douchebag, don't take Wells' seriously", because otherwise it sounds like you're speaking for me and everybody else, which you're not.

Seriously, your last post where you basically tell him he's a joke and how to do his job better is just a little bit pompous and smells like summer's eve. Wells is taken seriously whenever people agree with him and isn't whenever they don't, just like every other blogger - and journalist - out there.

Nobody's perfect, and it's in the nature of blogging, with the large number of nuggets they need to post every week, to drop a turd every so often. Big fucking whoop.

Posted by OddDuck at May 28, 2007 5:50 AM

comment #35

corey3rd says ...

I don't trust any organization that won't give an award to Chuck Norris.

Posted by corey3rd at May 28, 2007 6:09 AM

comment #36

Jayne Gacey says ...

Corey, they pay him tribute with their love and freedom. Happy Memorial Day!

Posted by Jayne Gacey at May 28, 2007 9:07 AM

comment #37

christian says ...

and no wonder one "jayne gacey" would love a serial killer movie...

but bruce did bring it to chuck first. booyah!

Posted by christian at May 28, 2007 10:21 AM

comment #38

Mr B says ...

Yeah, I don't agree with you at all Craptastic. I personally read this site for the overall experience. If I only wanted to here straightforward no-nonsense movie reporting I'd go somewhere else. But that sounds boring to me, so I stay here.

call me crazy, but why are you here if you don't like what Wells does at all?

Posted by Mr B at May 28, 2007 10:36 AM

comment #39

Mr B says ...

*hear

Yeah, I can't spell on the internet.

Posted by Mr B at May 28, 2007 10:37 AM

comment #40

raj says ...

i wonder, jeff, if it's just that you don't like a lot of foreign cinema that doesn't involve american players or the adoption of an american storytelling idiom (as 'the lives of others' does). cannes is an international film festival, after all, and unlike the international festivals held in the states, it actually prizes a variety of approaches. i know you really liked 'old men,' but i very rarely, if ever, see you praising or even referencing a taiwanese, algerian or iranian film. i don't see many of those films, myself, but 'm glad cannes is still a place where other traditions of cinematic storytelling are rewarded.

Posted by raj at May 28, 2007 11:35 AM

comment #41

Craptastic says ...

OddDuck, trust me... I'm not speaking for you or anyone else on this site. When I say "we" I mean people I know. How obnoxious is it for you to assume I'm speaking for you.

Also, like I said, I come here to read what others write regarding the subject. I find mostly everyone's postings more informative and entertaining than the blog itself. Actually, there's a lot of people here who should start their own movie blog.

Nice use of the word douchebag by the way. Clever.

Posted by Craptastic at May 28, 2007 12:25 PM

comment #42

D.Z. says ...

JD: "Mainstream to people like you, DZ, who will pay to see Zodiac and Grindhouse in the theatre, but ignore movies like The Wind That Shakes the Barley and 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days."

I'd be interested in 4 Months, but 'Barley's advertising was awful. It felt like a nostalgic version of Miller's Crossing. And I don't consider Grindhouse mainstream, because it's a geek movie, while Zodiac is essentially a big-budget dramatization with indie actors.

"What are you, a studio executive? Who cares how much it cost?"

I think the reason I care is because I'm wondering
where the money went, if it's got no one big attached to it.

"I can't see how a cheaper version of Zodiac would have been better."

It would have made its money back, for one. And Fincher would have probably been able to release it sooner without having to resort to test audiences.

"And no, I don't think Seven is a) a cheaper version of Zodiac or b) better."

It's a more creative version, at the very least.

JB: "DZ - What does Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of "Psycho" have to do with any of this?"

It's not really shot-for-shot. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEguGhhPWMA And what it has to do with is Zodiac and Grindhouse is that it shares the same conceit of not taking the subject matter seriously enough to make it appealing to the average movie-goer. Other than recreating sets, the three failed to tap into the essence of those times, which is why their films failed.

Posted by D.Z. at May 28, 2007 1:19 PM

comment #43

cheaplog says ...

As Gaydos mentioned, women are fairly represented in the jury each year. There were a lot of american movies in competition this year though, a Hong Kong director opening the festival with a film in English and even a French film directed by an American. This created a huge backlash, and it's surprising that some awards went to anything on the wrong side of the Atlantic. And don't forget that Paranoid Park is a french production.

Posted by cheaplog at May 28, 2007 1:58 PM

comment #44

Gaydos says ...

cheaplog: my variety colleague todd mccarthy noted the french biz aspect of the awards several times in his cannes awards piece on variety.com.

Here are the key excerpts:

"For starters, the Grand Prix, the prestigious runner-up award, was given to Naomi Kawase's "The Mourning Forest," an ultra-arty, arid and slow French-Japanese co-production that had viewers and critics streaming for the exits early and was supported only by die-hard partisans on the fest circuit.

"Then there was a specially created award, the 60th anniversary prize, for Gus Van Sant's "Paranoid Park," a well crafted but narrowly conceived drama (also French-financed) of a teenager skateboarder in denial about having accidentally caused a man's death...

"Only other Yank on stage to accept an accolade at the Sunday night festivities, presided over by thesp Diane Kruger and broadcast live on French television, was Julian Schnabel, who took best director honors for his French-spoken-and-financed drama "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"....

"Furthering the sense of awards distributed all over the map was the jury prize tie between two films that could scarcely be more diverse, Marjane Satrapi and Vincent Paronnaud's animated account of Satrapi's journey from girlhood in pre-revolutionary Iran to Western womanhood, the French-U.S. production "Persepolis," and Carlos Reygadas' "Silent Light," an austere, visually striking study of adultery within a Mennonite community in Mexico. Helmer has already stated that he intends to cut about 20 minutes from his film, officially a Mexican-French-Dutch coprod..."

Posted by Gaydos at May 28, 2007 2:39 PM

comment #45

jeffmcm says ...

What? DZ is acting like an ass?
Wake me up when something different happens.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 28, 2007 3:03 PM

comment #46

Craig Kennedy says ...

I didn't need the Cannes jury to tell me I want to see No Country For Old Men so I'm glad they went with something I hadn't heard of before the festival started. I like it when a big festival opens me up to new possibilities rather than reinforcing what I already know.

True, I'd like every Coen movie to be more successful and popular than the last, but just for shits and giggles I did a little box office math. Not counting Farenheit 9/11 or The Wind that Shakes the Barley (which is still in theatres) the combined box office take of all the Palme d'Or winners since 1996 is in the neighborhood of $40 million, or less than what Pirates of the Caribbean made on Friday alone.

So what's my point? Well, that's a good question.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at May 28, 2007 3:27 PM

comment #47

jeffmcm says ...

DZ:
Van Sant's Psycho was _mostly_ shot-for-shot. Certainly more than not, which makes your comment more of an obfuscation than revealing or enlightening. It's not a period film either so 'tapping into the essence of those times' is completely beside the point.

Grindhouse was a mass-market movie that didn't find its audience. It also wasn't a period film so there was no reason for it to tap into 'the essence of those times'.

Zodiac is equally as creative as Seven and primarily about other things than what it was like to live in San Francisco in the 1970s. If you want that information, read a book.

Choosing to skip The Wind That Shakes the Barley because you didn't approve of its marketing campaign is silly.

Try harder to explain yourself. You have strong opinions that you refuse to elaborate on beyond bare-bones oneliners in the assumption that people either already agree with you, or if they disagree they don't matter.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 28, 2007 4:30 PM

comment #48

JB Moore says ...

Wow. Thank you for showing me the way, DZ. Now that I think about it, Zodiac, and Grindhouse were pieces of shit in the same league as a needless big-budget (mostly) shot-for-shot remake of one of the greatest thrillers ever made. I once was blind, but now I can see. Praise Jesus.

Posted by JB Moore at May 28, 2007 4:50 PM

comment #49

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "Van Sant's Psycho was _mostly_ shot-for-shot."

If it was done shot-for-shot, it would have been in black and white and devoid of Van Sant's hippy posturing. When people think Michael Bay did a better job with the TCM remake, you know Van Sant blew it.

"Grindhouse was a mass-market movie that didn't find its audience."

If it didn't find its audience, then it's not really a mass-market movie.

"It also wasn't a period film"

But it was trying to be one, while balancing being set in the present, which is why it failed.

"so there was no reason for it to tap into 'the essence of those times'."

There was plenty of reason to do so, because it comes off awkward trying to present it in a current context. When Craven did Scream, for example, he didn't try to modernize the slasher film. He just used an analytical approach to the genre. Grindhouse failed, because it tried to fit in with an audience too young to "get" it, instead of just accepting its age.

"Zodiac is equally as creative as Seven and primarily about other things than what it was like to live in San Francisco in the 1970s."

That's why it didn't click. People want to be scared, not given a lecture.

"Choosing to skip The Wind That Shakes the Barley because you didn't approve of its marketing campaign is silly."

It's not silly if the marketing doesn't explain to me what's happening, and why I should care.

Posted by D.Z. at May 28, 2007 6:08 PM

comment #50

Jayne Gacey says ...

DZ: It's not silly if the marketing doesn't explain to me what's happening, and why I should care.

That's definetly the most telling thing you've ever said. You're the reason why every fucking trailer now tells me exactly what happens. You're the fucking reason I had to hear "We're almost there!" at the end of the god damned Children of Men trailer. Disgusting.

"That's why it didn't click. People want to be scared, not given a lecture.

Remind me how it was ever pitched at a horror film? The fucking theatrial trailer was almost too comedic for my tastes. Zodiac didn't click because A) it opened against Wild Hogs, which for some reason is a cultural phenomenon and B) every critic in the country beat the "It's 170 minutes long! It's not really about a serial killer!" drum, even the ones who raved it. It will find a major life on DVD. Lumping it in with Grindhouse and calling it something that didn't take itself seriously enough to be entertaining is absurd. It is Fincher's Apocalypse Now, and you're trying to call it his Cotton Club.

What exactly do you even want in a movie?

Posted by Jayne Gacey at May 28, 2007 7:05 PM

comment #51

jeffmcm says ...

1. I don't think the Psycho remake was a good movie but like I said before: your comments are merely clouding the issue, not revealing anything insightful or revealing about it.

2. That's not true. A flop can be a mass-market movie if that's who it was aimed for; an arthouse movie can be a success if it hits a wider audience. These are semantic terms you are hiding behind to cloud the issue.

3. It was not trying to be a period film. Regardless, I doubt there is any conceiveable way it could have been differet enough to make you not think it was a failure. Stop changing the subject and clouding the issue.

4. Craven _did_ modernize the slasher film.

5. That's why it's a good film, because it's scary and about more than just wasting peoples' time with cheap thrills. It's more arthouse than anyone wanted it to be; that's not a bad thing if you think of movies as anything other than something to put on your TV screen while you're waiting for the pizza to be delivered.

6. It's silly if you are interested in seeing good filmmaking by one of the world's top directors. If you don't care that's your choice but it raises the question as to why anyone should give a flying fuck about your pointless opinions except for the obvious fact that you incessantly flout them for all to behold, regardless of attempts to engage you in discussion; you talk and rant and rave and waste everyone's time with your pointlessness and immaturity.

It's stupid of me to try and keep engaging you but I do because I'm stubborn and think that some piece of you still has some small piece of humanity.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 28, 2007 7:10 PM

comment #52

jeffmcm says ...

Jayne asked the right question: what you even want in a movie? You obviously ride on an aesthetic high horse but you refuse to share your wisdom with us lowly wretches except in arrogant drips and drabs. Oh please, mighty Daniel Zelter of West Hollywood, share your enlightenment with us.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 28, 2007 7:12 PM

comment #53

D.Z. says ...

Jayne: "That's definetly the most telling thing you've ever said. You're the reason why every fucking trailer now tells me exactly what happens."

I don't want them to reveal spoilers, but how am I supposed to tell one indie movie taking place in the country from another?

"It is Fincher's Apocalypse Now,"

Apocalypse Now was about modernizing a "classic" book for the purpose of explaining Frankie's personal experience with a war which was a part of his life. Zodiac is an extended and R-rated episode of "Unsolved Mysteries".

jeff: "A flop can be a mass-market movie if that's who it was aimed for;"

But most of the time, that's not who the movies aim for, which is why they flop.

"an arthouse movie can be a success if it hits a wider audience."

Yes, but a movie which aims for a wider audience, but has a lower budget, is usually not of the arthouse variety.

"It was not trying to be a period film."

That's why that retro 70s music was playing along with cars most people don't even drive anymore.

"Craven _did_ modernize the slasher film."

The only modernization included casting young adult stars from popular shows for teens, as opposed to just scouring for stars from the b-circuit. Scream's still the same as its predecessors, except with more blatant social commentary.

"That's why it's a good film, because it's scary and about more than just wasting peoples' time with cheap thrills."

But I thought that's what you loved Se7en.

"It's more arthouse than anyone wanted it to be; that's not a bad thing if you think of movies as anything other than something to put on your TV screen while you're waiting for the pizza to be delivered."

I think of movies as engaging, not
self-contemplative.

Posted by D.Z. at May 28, 2007 8:09 PM

comment #54

Jayne Gacey says ...

D.Z., I very clearly was not comparing Apocalypse Now to Zodiac, rather talking about the role of Zodiac in Fincher's career. If I said Titanic was James Cameron's Apocalypse Now, Terminator being his Godfather and Aliens being his Godfather Part 2, you would counter: "The Godfather was about gangsters, The Terminator was about cyborgs from the future." And I would start to cry.

Posted by Jayne Gacey at May 28, 2007 8:57 PM

comment #55

Noah says ...

this is cute:

http://www.friendster.com/user.php?uid=1267128

Posted by Noah at May 28, 2007 9:00 PM

comment #56

D.Z. says ...

Jayne: Fincher's Apocalypse Now already happened with Fight Club. Zodiac is just a case of him trying to pass the time until his next project. And I'd counter that that's a stupid analogy, because Titanic wasn't a failure. (At least at the box office...)

Posted by D.Z. at May 28, 2007 9:40 PM

comment #57

Jayne Gacey says ...

Tears.

Posted by Jayne Gacey at May 28, 2007 9:44 PM

comment #58

JB Moore says ...

Yes, Jayne. Tears. Of laughter.

Posted by JB Moore at May 28, 2007 10:36 PM

comment #59

Flyertaxi says ...

He's the blob on the far left. I can smell him from here.

Posted by Flyertaxi at May 28, 2007 10:51 PM

comment #60

jeffmcm says ...

My favorite is the three words under "Daniel's friends".

DZ, why do you comment here? You don't want to engage other people in conversation. You don't like movies. What is the point of it all?

???

Posted by jeffmcm at May 29, 2007 12:03 AM

comment #61

jeffmcm says ...

"I think of movies as engaging, not
self-contemplative."

Is it not possible that if a movie fails to engage you, that might not be the movie's fault? Or is it inconsequential?

Posted by jeffmcm at May 29, 2007 12:14 AM

comment #62

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "Is it not possible that if a movie fails to engage you, that might not be the movie's fault?"

Sometimes, but that usually depends on the effort of the director. If they at least tried to make it interesting, fine. But if they're stuck in their own world, or won't let me in on the joke, then they really shouldn't be surprised if they find themselves alienating viewers like me.

Posted by D.Z. at May 29, 2007 12:51 AM

comment #63

jeffmcm says ...

So what of all the viewers they _didn't_ alienate?

For example, I think that many of the things that most audience members didn't like about Zodiac are the same things that I liked in it and made it an above-average film. Does this hold any interest for you? Considering that you seem to like about four movies, I find your strong aesthetic preferences mystifying.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 29, 2007 1:29 AM

comment #64

JB Moore says ...

DZ, what ARE the four movies you like?

Posted by JB Moore at May 29, 2007 1:40 AM

comment #65

jeffmcm says ...

One of them is Beautiful Boxer, which I have never seen.

Posted by jeffmcm at May 29, 2007 1:52 AM

comment #66

Jayne Gacey says ...

DZ I would say Zodiac was fairly well like actually. The only grumbles I heard during the afternoon I saw it was from the 15 year olds in front who've grown up on Fight Club and Se7en were expecting more of the same. Your motto is basically "Give the people what they want, I hate the people." Still, Zodiac has an 8.2 on IMDb and currently resides at numer 161. It wasn't what people were expecting, which for most of us is a good thing.

"I think of movies as engaging, not
self-contemplative." Is English your second language? Also, Alien3 is definetly Fincher's Rain People!

Posted by Jayne Gacey at May 29, 2007 3:26 AM

comment #67

christian says ...

you folk are spending way too much time trying to figger dz out. can't be done. move along.

Posted by christian at May 29, 2007 9:28 AM

comment #68

Jay T. says ...

Cannes sucks... I'm glad No Country didn't win... it would have been the kiss of death.

Posted by Jay T. at May 29, 2007 10:55 AM

comment #69

thorsen1nk says ...

What a screw. Colette is a fine actress and Cheung is a world-class piece of ass, but their decision has just added ammo to the Cannes-haters.

Posted by thorsen1nk at May 29, 2007 12:42 PM

comment #70

buck says ...

Jeff:
Once again, my pals the married couple Frank Marshall and Kathleen Kennedy avoid the ink. Kathleen had two of her movies awarded. Le Scaphandre et le papillon and Perspolis were both produced by her, but do you hear a peep about her? Non. Probably the biggest producers in Hollywood history and almost nobody outside the industry has ever even heard of them. Want to win a bet? Ask a movie junkie who produced the Raiders of the Lost Ark pictures - he'll say George Lucas. BRAZZZZZZZZZ! Sorry - Frank Marshall.

Bob Shaw
Silicon Valley

Posted by buck at May 29, 2007 3:43 PM

comment #71