Late to the Party

• email this story
• read comments (32)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

The Cannes Film Festival official screening schedule went up yesterday with the press screening schedule expected to post sometime tomorrow.

The rundown identifies Steven Soderbergh's The Argentine and Guerilla as a single film called Che that runs 4 hours and 28 minutes. Meaning, obviously, that as far as Cannes is concerned, the two-movie concept is out the window in favor of presenting a single epic-sized film with an intermission.

Che is showing to the press on Wednesday morning, 5.21 -- a relatively late berth as the hot-ticket films tend to show at the festival within the first five or six days. Soderbergh presumably asked for a late-as-possible slot in order to give him extra time for final tweaks, as the the film's inclusion at Cannes was in doubt until the last minute due to an editing crunch. The black-tie public viewing will happen that evening at 6:30. With all the introductions and applause moments, it will finish close to five hours later. An after-party will follow.

comment #1

lazarus says ...

Too bad some of our resident wingnuts won't be at the screening to yell "MURDERER!" for another 10 minutes after the film ends.

I think it's good that it's likely to play in two parts over here--it will give time people to consider and reflect on Che's rise before moving on to the fall.

The question is, how far apart. I remember Kill Bill Vol. 2 was supposed to show within a few months of Vol. 1, and it turned into more like 6.

comment #2

Mgmax says ...

"Too bad some of our resident wingnuts won't be at the screening to yell "MURDERER!" for another 10 minutes after the film ends."

No, I'm sure it will be a lovefest for dictatorship, France has experience in that regard.

Obligatory political bullshit out of the way-- yikes! That's 45 minutes longer than Lawrence of Arabia. Sure, if it's Godfather-good it can hold up that length, but I sure see trimming in its future for US release, no?

comment #3

corey3rd says ...

They could run Motorcycle Diaries as a short.

comment #4

JD says ...

Mgmax, I don't think trimming's necessary, as it's being released as two separate movies. I think they're only being joined for awards/competition reasons at Cannes. However, part of me does worry that the running time could diminish the experience for some reason and create a Southland Tales-like rejection. Then again, I have confidence that Soderbergh knows what he's doing here.

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "No, I'm sure it will be a lovefest for dictatorship, France has experience in that regard."

*cough* Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand before selling him chemical weapons *cough*

comment #6

p.Vice says ...

JD -- I hope that confidence you're referring to isn't the same confidence that led him to shit out three Oceans movies and tank his career as a respectable artist.

comment #7

p.Vice says ...

Actually, I take that back. It ended at Erin Brockovich.

comment #8

corey3rd says ...

I don't think running time had anything to do with Southland Tales being a major thud. That movie was a Thomas Pynchon novel - after it's gone through a papershreader

comment #9

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

JD: However, part of me does worry that the running time could diminish the experience for some reason and create a Southland Tales-like rejection. Then again, I have confidence that Soderbergh knows what he's doing here.

No matter how bad Che turns out to be, nothing can be worse, or deserve a worse reaction, than Southland Tales. That movie was an apocalyptic disaster.

I felt suicidal while watching it but forced myself to sit through the whole thing. Never again.

comment #10

lazarus says ...

p.Vice, how dense are you? Isn't it common knowledge that Soderbergh and Clooney made those films to fund their more personal projects?

Or maybe you do know what, and it's just impossible for you to get through the day without taking a cheap potshot at someone.

comment #11

York "Budd" Durden says ...

Kunze, I'm right with you on Southland Tales. What. A. Mess.

comment #12

Mgmax says ...

D.Z., it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but our enemies, like Roosevelt did, Kennedy did, and Truman did.

comment #13

storymark says ...

Mgmax - Is it also wisdom to sell those enemies weapons?

comment #14

Mgmax says ...

You know, if I believed it would do any good, for the third or fourth time I would dig out the chart that demonstrated what anyone who lived through that time knows, which is that Saddam was a Soviet client, and that our total contribution to his military represented 1% of the total-- behind France, Brazil and many others.

And then a week later D.Z. would say "But Rumsfeld armed him!" Because there are three things everyone knows, that we armed the hell out of Saddam; that Saddam had no bad weapons despite our arming him so heavily; and that there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda:

http://tinyurl.com/q2lqc

So believe what you want. Saddam was our boy and Che was a sweetheart. Whatever, kids.

comment #15

JD says ...

Seriously, if you don't like Southland Tales, why even bother showing up? The assumption is that it's horrible... because pretty much everyone feels that way. So why get all impassioned about hating it? Truth is, it's a really uncompromising, proudly bizarre film that dares to piss audiences off -- deliberately. Not liking it is almost a show of support.

comment #16

dinther says ...

Just when I think I've done all I can to avoid tiny-minded Republican apologists, I stumble upon them in, of all places, Hollywood Elsewhere.

Look Mgmax, prop up all the straw men you wish, you're avoiding the critique: it is that Rumsfeld courted Hussein when it was politically expedient, notwithstanding his knowledge that Hussein had deployed chemical weapons that we, in part, sold him, against certain populations in his territory, and that we later used this deployment of chemical weapons as part of the pretext for invading Iraq. You're assailing phantom arguments, my friend.

And then, from nowhere, you throw in a Saddam-al Qeida connection? Oy, this is like talking to the little retarded kid - no matter what you say, he keeps repeating the same thing over and over and over...

comment #17

televisiontears says ...

In total agreement, JD. The greek chorus of "It's a messy mess of a mess." was monotonous as all hell upon Southland's release. When I saw it, the backlash become hilarious to me. It's designed as a mess. Kelly knew exactly what he was doing here, like it or not (personally, I'm in the former category). He swung for the fences trying to speak an entirely new cinematic language, and with the exception of some misplaced "comedy", he succeeded. Hope it's critical and B.O. failure didn't take away his balls, which Southland proves are HUGE.

comment #18

Mgmax says ...

"Oy, this is like talking to the little retarded kid"

And this is like talking to every other condescending Kossite leftwing jackass who doesn't know what he's talking about but is sure that he's a superior being anyway, on no evidence that's apparent in the thread other than his talent for third-grade invective.

Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur.

comment #19

Richardson says ...

"Truth is, it's a really uncompromising, proudly bizarre film that dares to piss audiences off -- deliberately. Not liking it is almost a show of support."

So, since you liked it, that means that Richard Kelly failed?

comment #20

Richardson says ...

"and that there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda:"

So a picture is proof of a connection, unless it's a picture of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld?

Also, anybody who knows anything about Iraq pre-invasion knows that Saddam was not in control of most of the outer areas of Iraq; proving that Al Qaeda had some operations based out of Iraq is not quite the same thing as proving any connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, though I grant you that this would be very good proof to counter people saying that there was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before we got there (as some assert).

comment #21

Mgmax says ...

Um, yeah, that was my point.

A casual photo that supports your point is sufficient evidence to prove whatever you want. A casual photo that doesn't support your point means absolutely nothing. That's the definition of a partisan like D.Z. or, apparently, this dinther person.

If you think you caught ME in a contradiction there, uh, well, I'm just the retarded kid on the playground, I have no idea what I'm saying, duh duh duh, maybe someday I'll listen me some Air America and git smart. Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.

comment #22

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

JD:

So Richard Kelly intended to make a movie that recycled the same stupid jokes over and over. A movie ripe with horrible acting, horrible plot, that was 3 hours long and cost millions of dollars and took 5 years of his life to make. He intended to make a movie that failed with critics and did not make any money and made everyone with any intelligence who saw it, hate it.

Good for him. Now I really can't wait to see his next flop starring Cameron Diaz.

This guys is like Cimino and Southland is his Heaven's Gates. But at least Cimino had The Deer Hunter.

Kelly had Donnie Darko, which was shit too, just not as bad smelling. And yes, it was shit even before it became an emo classic.

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "You know, if I believed it would do any good, for the third or fourth time I would dig out the chart that demonstrated what anyone who lived through that time knows, which is that Saddam was a Soviet client, and that our total contribution to his military represented 1% of the total-- behind France, Brazil and many others."

So you're basically arguing if they do it, it's ok to do it, too?

"And this is like talking to every other condescending Kossite leftwing jackass who doesn't know what he's talking about "

That's hilarious, coming from a guy who supports the policies of a President unable to tell the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni. What have you been right about once this time regarding the guy, huh?

"A casual photo that supports your point is sufficient evidence to prove whatever you want. A casual photo that doesn't support your point means absolutely nothing. That's the definition of a partisan like D.Z. or, apparently, this dinther person"

*cough* Willie Horton *cough*

comment #24

Mgmax says ...

Michael Dukakis sold chemical weapons to Willie Horton?

comment #25

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: No, the point was that Republicans had no problems using images of Horton against Dukakis, so they're not really in a position to complain when we use the Rummy/Saddam man-love photos against Bush.

comment #26

Mgmax says ...

I am trying hard to figure out how the two are remotely similar enough to be used in the same way to the same end. So far, I'm stumped.

comment #27

corey3rd says ...

"Seriously, if you don't like Southland Tales, why even bother showing up? "

Cause I stuck it on my netflix queue and forgot about it. i don't even remember it playing in my area. it showed up like a surprise. i put it on and kept thinking, maybe I'm thinking too much to understand this film. You know that moment when a five year old thinks her knock-knock joke is extreme genius? I should take back the Pynchon. it was like knock off Steve Erickson and Bruce Wagner except without enough bite or beauty. Thank goodness I watched it at home where I didn't pay $10 and I was able to get other stuff done instead of feeling like this movie stole money from my wallet and time from my life.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: Both pictures were used to attack the characters of their respective candidates.

comment #29

Mgmax says ...

Ronald Reagan was running again during the last couple of years when you kept bringing it up here? Did Nancy know?

Seriously, what's it supposed to mean to you? So we sent somebody to kiss up to a Soviet ally and enemy of our enemy in the midst of the Cold War. Possibly neither the most honorable or wisest example of realpolitik ever performed, but given the times, a reasonable strategem. 25 years later, the whole situation has changed in every way-- Soviets gone, Islamic radicals on the march, Saddam backing terrorists (if not the ones who bombed us on 9/11, plenty of others), and us policing a third of his country. What is the relevance of this photo from a quarter century before, that all our policy should be driven by its totemic power? Why should it constrain our actions today? Can you even articulate why it's supposed to be such a big fat debate-ender in your mind?

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" --John Maynard Keynes

comment #30

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Possibly neither the most honorable or wisest example of realpolitik ever performed, but given the times, a reasonable strategem."

Yes, those dead Kurds agree.

"25 years later, the whole situation has changed in every way-- Soviets gone, Islamic radicals on the march, Saddam backing terrorists (if not the ones who bombed us on 9/11, plenty of others), and us policing a third of his country. What is the relevance of this photo from a quarter century before, that all our policy should be driven by its totemic power? Why should it constrain our actions today?"

You don't seem to get that we [And by we, I mean Republicans and hawks.] *haven't* learned from our policy decisions 25 years ago, and that we're just going in a circle, because we assume any form of intervention is doable, and with no consequences.

comment #31

Mgmax says ...

Oh, like you care about dead Kurds except to beat Bush with.

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: Bush doesn't care about Kurds, either, judging by how he's willing to let Turkey bomb them, so that it doesn't withhold support over the Armenian Genocide...

Post a Comment