Ilya Povolotsky’s Grace, a haunting, Wim Wenders-like father-daughter road film set in Russia’s outlying regions, is a Director’s Fortnight selection. Reviews will pop later tonight or tomorrow.

Last night HE enjoyed a friendly sit-down with Povolotsky and producer Victoria Chernukha. Povolotsky, a Cannes first-timer, knows this adrift and rootless turf, and commendably sticks to his stylistic guns. We bonded over his admiration for Black Flies.

The press screening happens Saturday afternoon at 4:30 pm (7:30 am in Los Angeles), and will break sometime around 8 pm, give or take.

Jonathan Glazer‘s The Zone of Interest is an ice-pick art film about evil with a capital E — a riveting, unmistakably horrifying portrait of the home life of Rudolf Höss (Christian Friedel), commandant of the infamous Auschwitz prison camp during World War II, and his wife Hedwig (Toni Erdmann‘s Sandra Hüller).

Rudolf, Hedwig and the kids reside in a large, handsome home just outside the gates of the camp, and mostly we’re just shown the day-to-day of meals, housekeeping, horseback riding, idle chatting with friends, casual infidelities and whatnot.

Glazer’s basic strategy is to allow subtle allusions, hints and insinuations of the Auschwitz horror to seep into this atmosphere of domesticity. Toward the end are two or three scenes of Rudolf meeting with military colleagues about a planned, ramped-up extermination of Hungarian Jews, but Glazer keeps it all curt and officious, saying to us “can you sense it…can you feel it?”

The vibe is ghastly and revolting, of course. The moral delivery feels like…I don’t know, gas filling your lungs or poison spreading through your veins. Little plop-plops of horror like Alka Seltzer tablets.

The film is basically one static tableau after another. The Hoss family taking a swim, the children playing on the grounds, Rudolf professing love for his favorite horse in the stable, Rudolf and Hedwig indulging themselves with lovers on the side, etc.

The Zone of Interest begins with a spooky overture (the composer is Mica Levi) against a black screen, and to be completely honest it was this overture that put the hook in more than anything else.

Because the movie that follows has no story — it is simply about exposing Rudolf and Hedwig’s aloofness and apartness — cruelty, denial, an absence of basic humanity. Here be monsters.

The second best sequence comes at the very end, a series of flash-forward, present-day images of what I presume is the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, and then Glazer dovetailing back to 1942 as Rudolf is seemingly struck by a vision of what the future will bring, and (perhaps) who and what he is.

It all “works” but man, this film is dry as a bone. Like a frigid, long-buried fossil. Dry-ice steam filling the air.

The Cannes mob, of course, is praising it to the heavens because of the toxic moral current and Glazer’s arthouse strategy. Cannes critics can’t be iffy about such a film — they have to jump up and down lest they seem indifferent or unmoved by what Zone is presenting and how it all sinks in.

It’s a film that certainly sticks to your ribs (I can feel it kicking around inside as I write this), but I have to say that I found it too spare, too artified and rigidly schematic to a fault.

As I watched I was asking myself what is this movie saying that wasn’t in Steven Spielberg‘s Schindler’s List or Loring Mandel‘s Conspiracy (’01), a made-for-TV drama that delved into the psychology behind the 1942 Wannsee Conference, which is where “the final solution of the Jewish question” was ratified and officially put into motion.

The answer, as noted, is that The Zone of Interest has been shorn of explicitness while humming with implication. That’s the basic idea, and either this approach knocks you flat or it doesn’t.

I was simultaneously chilled to the bone while muttering to myself “I wish this film had something more because as penetrating as Glazer’s strategy is, it’s like early haute cuisine…big plate, exquisite food but very small portions.”

The film is based upon Martin Amis’s same-titled 2014 novel. It’s about a Nazi officer named Angelus Thomsen who falls into lust for the wife of the Auschwitz camp commandant, named Paul Doll. The only basic element that the book and the film have in common is the Auschwitz setting.

I’m certainly not dismissing Glazer’s film, but if he’d gone with the Amis story he might have been able to kill two birds with a single stone.

Dancing on a balcony on rue d’Antibes, roughly ten minutes after the 6:30 pm Zone of Interest screening let out. A sizable crowd stood and stared and took videos.

…is next on the dance card. Slated to begin showing at the Salle Debussy at 6 pm, and of course we’re still lined up outside at 6:12 pm. It would be nice if festival staffers would make at least some attempt to screen films at the scheduled time. We’re all on a clock, trying to squeeze in meetings, feedings and as many films as possible, etc.

Not a huge fan of Glazer’s Under The Skin. For me only Sexy Beast, 22 and 1/2 years old, hits it out of the park..

…if the weather would ease up on the damn moisture already. Enough is enough.

At 7:45 am, 150-200 people in a last-minute badge line for Indy 5. Those who read last night’s reviews are at least considering a charge that it’s not that good, and they don’t care. Neither do I. Obedient corporate brand slaves, all of us.

I would feel derelict if I didn’t at least try to see it.

11:10 am update: I got in because of a last-minute decision by festival staff to let journalists in first. Thanks, guys…appreciated.

And guess what? Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny isn’t half bad — it follows the template to the letter, doing the time-honored Indy dance in a completely predictable but nonetheless tolerable and certainly professional fashion, and it has a CRAZY-ASS ending that HE definitely won’t spoil.

From Robbie Collin’s Cannes review:

HE will try to catch it at 8:30 am tomorrow.

I’m sorry but I’ve never been a fan of Hirokazu Kore-eda, the humanist, kind-hearted, Ozu-like Japanese director whom everyone (i.e., the Cannes mob) admires. I “respect” his signature focus (sad, anxious, troubled families going through difficult times), but his films (Shoplifters, Broker, Like Father, Like Son) have always bored my pants off.

Which means, of course, that I don’t like Kore-era’s humanism…right? I know I’ve always found his stories frustrating because they seem to just go on and on.

I certainly felt this way during today’s Salle Debussy screening of his latest film, Monster, which deals with school bullying, repressed rage and various family misunderstandings.

It struck me as repetitive and meandering and lacking in narrative discipline. I began to feel antsy after the first hour, and then this feeling seemed to double-down. My soul was screaming during the final half-hour of this 125-minute film, which felt more like three hours. I was silently whimpering.

I’m not condemning Monster or calling it a bad film. I’m just saying the world of Kore-era is not for me, and never will be. This doesn’t make me a bad person, or so I’m telling myself. I know that at the 95-minute mark I leaned over and muttered to a friend, “I don’t know how much more of this I can take.”

I got up early to attend this morning’s 8:10 am Directors Fortnight screening of Cedric Kahn‘s The Goldman Case (aka Le process Goldman), and yet the show didn’t begin until 8:45 am. No matter — all my irritations melted away almost immediately once it finally began. For this is a taut, lean and honed to the bone French courtroom drama — boxy-framed and based on an actual 1976 trial of admitted felon, social activist and revolutionary militant Pierre Goldman, who was charged with killing two female pharmacists during a robbery.

Goldman (Arieh Worthalter) admits to being an armed thief while vehemently insisting that he killed no one. And yet he refused to approve a typical defense, at least as far as calling character witnesses was concerned. “I’m innocent because I’m innocent,” Goldman declares while venting disgust with the usual courtroom strategies. In a pre-trial letter to his attorney Georges Kiejman (Arthur Harari), we hear a letter from Goldman in which he fires Kiejman for his allegedly soul-less mindset while calling him an “armchair Jew”. Then again Goldman recants soon after.

So the trial testimony boils down to reviewing Goldman’s life and political history while Kiejman tries to chip away at eyewitnesses whose testimony has pointed to Goldman’s possible guilt.

All I can say is that The Goldman Case eschews typical courtroom strategies and dramatics as ardently as Goldman 47 years ago. Based upon interviews with Goldman’s attorneys and news accounts and certainly shorn of almost everything that might appeal to fans of typical American courtroom dramas (i.e., everything from Witness For The Prosecution to The Verdict to A Few Good Men and Primal Fear), this is one ultra-tight, super-specific and and brilliantly focused courtroom nail-pounder. It pulls you right in and keeps you hooked, in no small part due to Worthalter’s intense but subtly moderated lead performance.

I have a Monster screening breathing down my neck so that’s all I can say for now. The Goldman Case is way too severe and hardcore for typical American audiences, who won’t know or give a fuck who Goldman was in the first place. But I was riveted, and I would expect that many others will feel the same when and if The Goldman Case begins streaming on U.S. shores. (I would be surprised if a U.S. distributor decides that it’s worth showing theatrically, but then again someone might.)