Posted last night by Showbiz411‘s Roger Friedman: “We all want it, believe me. Everybody wants it. But the reality, I am told, is that Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is not a lock for the Cannes Film Festival next month. Sony is set to release the potential blockbuster on July 26, but [nine] days from the big announcement of Cannes movies, the word is that the film may be ‘OUT’ for the time being.”

The rumor is that Tarantino is scrambling to finish the editing in time, but, Friedman writes, “it may take longer than April 18th” — Cannes announcement day — “or even May 21st, when it’s supposed to show at Cannes on the 25th anniversary of Pulp Fiction at Cannes.”

Leonardo DiCaprio’s “Rick Dalton” and Brad Pitt’s “Cliff Booth”, largely based upon Burt Reynolds and stuntman buddy Hal Needham, at a time when TV actor Reynolds was struggling to get into A-level features but without much success.

HE’s take on this? “Not finished in time for Cannes” = Sony management is afraid that Once Upon A Time in Hollywood may get buckshot by Cannes critics and has concluded it’s safer to just open it in July on the strength of the DiCaprio-Pitt-Robbie casting and the 1969 old-Hollywood-nostalgia marketing campaign.

Keep in mind that the main character — Leonardo DiCaprio‘s “Rick Dalton”, a TV actor trying but failing to break into features — is largely based upon Burt Reynolds, who was also trying in ’69 to maneuver his way into grade-A features but who didn’t get there until his starring role in John Boorman‘s Deliverance (’72). Brad Pitt‘s “Cliff Booth”, Rick’s longtime stunt double, is of course based upon Reynold’s good stuntman buddy Hal Needham, who went to directing redneck car-chase movies and who was ironically instrumental in destroying Reynolds’ career in the early ’80s.

From Cannes press office: On Tuesday, 5.14, Jim Jarmusch‘s The Dead Don’t Die will be screened at the opening of the 2019 Cannes Film Festival (5.14 to 5.25), and in competition — a world premiere. HE passed along a rumor about Jarmsuch’s film going to Cannes ten days ago.

It certainly matters to me if Iggy Pop is playing a zombie, but will it matter to average low-rent horror fans (i.e., the less-than-discerning types who loved It)? You have to ask this stuff.

Tell me how this official synopsis differs from George Romero‘s Night of the Living Dead (’68), except for the name of the town: “In the sleepy small town of Centerville, something is not quite right. The moon hangs large and low in the sky, the hours of daylight are becoming unpredictable and animals are beginning to exhibit unusual behaviors. No one quite knows why. News reports are scary and scientists are concerned. But no one foresees the strangest and most dangerous repercussion that will soon plague Centerville: The Dead Don’t Die — they rise from their graves and savagely attack and feast on the living — and the citizens of the town must battle for their survival.”

When Romero made his groundbreaking indie zombie film in 1968, there was an actual metaphor in play. An idea about debased or corroded human behavior somehow causing a rupture in the natural life-death cycle. Now the zombie thing is just another brand — a horror concept that became a movie and TV genre. Jarmusch being Jarmusch, I’m presuming that some kind of attempt has been made to refresh the metaphor.

I’m sorry but spelling and pronouncing the name of Thailand director Apichatpong Weerasethakul (Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives, Mekong Hotel, Cemetery of Splendor) has always been a problem for me. Guy Lodge types won’t admit this but it’s true for most of us (or at least those of us who are honest). His Wiki bio says that “cinephiles affectionately refer to him as ‘Joe’ Weerasethakul — a nickname that he, like many with similarly long Thai names, has adopted out of convenience.” The last name, of course, is much more difficult to handle than the first. In my mind he’s always been Apichatpong J. Weisenheimer.

World of Reel‘s Jordan Ruimy has been polling critics for their favorite films of the twenty-teens. So far he’s heard back from 134 critics, but is looking to poll 200 or better before posting the results next week. This morning I sent him my nine–year rundown [after the jump] and asked how many of my picks have landed near the top of Ruimy’s best-of-the-decade list.

Ruimy’s response: “There are two films on your best-of-the-teens list that are currently in the top 10: The Social Network and A Separation. Two more of your favorites, Manchester By the Sea and Call Me By Your Name, are in the top 20. The Wolf of Wall Street is slowly climbing up. Moonlight is among the top ten, and Get Out isn’t far behind.

HE opinion: Moonlight is a good film, but was over-showered with praise by way of virtue-signalling and p.c. kowtowing. Now that the post-Twilight Zone truth about Jordan Peele has begun to settle in (i.e., that he got lucky by way of overpraise from guys like L.A. Daily News critic Bob Strauss), Get Out‘s rep is almost certainly undergoing a reassessment.

Back to Ruimy: “Out of the 134 critics that have submitted their lists thus far NONE have mentioned Zero Dark Thirty, Leviathan or The Square. Only three lists have Son of Saul, including my own. Surprisingly Moneyball is getting some decent love — it’s on five lists.

“Apparently not enough people have seen Diane.”

When people clap at the end of an industry screening, it usually indicates (a) politeness and (b) support of filmmakers whom some in the audience would like to meet and perhaps even work with some day. When people clap at a regular ticket-buyer screening, it means the film is a hit — period. They clapped at the end of Platoon, The Silence of the Lambs, Goodfellas, Titanic, The Wolf of Wall Street, etc.

What goes through my mind when this happens? I say to myself “this is what I love about seeing a film in a theatre…I love this kind of clear and immediate sense of how a film has played with a cross-section…you obviously can’t get this at home….I also love it when people laugh at a film by hooting and talking back to the screen, like when I saw Irwin Allen‘s The Swarm at the Quad back in ’78.”

Director-screenwriter Oliver Stone, currently the Noam Chomsky of Hollywood filmmakers, is still fully engaged, plugging away and firing on all cylinders. He’ll probably remain that way until the day he drops dead. But from ’86 through ’91 Stone was incandescent and untouchable — Salvador (’86), Platoon (’87), Wall Street (’87), Talk Radio (’88), Born on the Fourth of July (’89), The Doors (’91), JFK (’91). You could extend the streak, I suppose, to Natural Born Killers (’94), even though Heaven and Earth (’93) was a problem. Any Given Sunday (’99) was of course a major rebound. Okay, call it a 13-year streak.

In Anne Thompson‘s “10 Things We Learned at CinemaCon” piece, the #4 lesson is that “Netflix may have to open The Irishman via indie theater chains.”

“Of course, the big circuits would love to play the $175-million Martin Scorsese gangster epic — as long as it isn’t released by Netflix. Even Mexico’s Cinepolis refused to show the Oscar-nominated Roma — directed by favorite son Alfonso Cuarón — because Netflix would not respect the exclusive theatrical window. That means that no major chain will show the Scorsese [film] either.

“That leaves Netflix going back to the 100 or so indie theaters it booked on Bird Box and Roma. In New York, The Irishman could wind up opening at the IFC Center. And in L.A., Netflix is in the process of acquiring and partnering with the American Cinematheque to program the venerable Egyptian Theatre. That would give the streamer a permanent weeknight venue for L.A. awards events and premieres all year long.”

Friend: Look at this new voter poll — that lame Joe Biden handsy “controversy” didn’t make a dent.

HE: Mr. and Mrs. Older Middle America are half-asleep at the wheel and lazy as fuck.

Friend: Will you ever be able to face reality?

HE: It’s not that I find Joe deficient, but he’s YESTERDAY’S NEWS….he’s the SENIOR-SET LAYOVER FROM THE OBAMA YEARS, and really, from the ’90s and early aughts. People start to decline in their late 70s and certainly by their early ’80s. The Presidency is not for Joe…not now. He’s an 18-years-older Stuart Symington, when Symington was running in ’60. Or Symington running in ’80, when he turned 79. Joe’s moment has PASSED…water under the bridge. Joe isn’t even a baby boomer — he was born in ’42, or right at the tail end of the Baby Bust generation. The boomers came along in ’46. A number of N.Y. Times and Washington Post columnists have said this over and over. The verdict is clear — in the long run Biden would be better off stepping aside.

It HAS to be Buttigieg, Beto or Harris. They are now, Biden is yesterday. It HAS to be this way. Biden’s numbers are simply about name recognition — that and the astounding laziness and lack of focus on the part of middle-range poll respondents. Once the real debates start and the ’20 primaries begin, his big lead will evaporate like that. Beto is not over — he’s just gathering himself, working the towns, finding his national voice. The man connects with people. My favorite is Buttigieg — he’s really GOT IT — but Beto would be excellent, and he’s taller than Trump (while Mayor Pete is four inches shorter). The only thing that scares me about Buttigieg is the Alfred E. Neuman resemblance and the fact that he’s only around 5’9″ or thereabouts. The only thing that scares me about Harris is that voice of hers, that lack of oratory command, that scolding tone. She may win against Trump, but she may not.

Friend: Oh, for fuck’s sake! How can people on the left be THIS ETERNALLY STUPID, going all the way back to 1972? THINK about where we are. Three years ago the country was yanked HARD RIGHT. There is zero chance, after the first term of a presidency, that the country will swiftly be pulled HARD LEFT. So Harris is out automatically. She is not a moderate. Mayor Pete is gay. The number one job of the commander in chief is not to make boomers feel like their life is worth a damn or to sell false hope to millennials it is to be in charge of the most powerful army in the world. Anyone who becomes president has to be THAT before they are anything. It isn’t about what YOU LIKE. It isn’t about what liberals need to feel good about themselves. It is about asking an entire country to change horses midstream.

Right now Trump’s disapproval ratings aren’t anywhere near Jimmy Carter’s. Carter was primary-ed by Ted Kennedy. The entire Democratic Party turned against him and we got fucking Ronald Reagan and HW for 12 years! Do you know how badly they raped this country in ten years? THAT SHIT IS ON THE DEMOCRATS. Cut to 2000 — idiots who supported Ralph Nader let Al Gore slip through because people like you didn’t think he was hip enough. We got BUSH for eight more years. Now we come to 2016 and Green Peace and fucking Naomi Klein and idiots like Shailene Woodley could go to Standing Rock and pretend they gave a damn but in reality they would not vote for Hillary. So now we have Trump.

On 6.7 CBS Films will release Ron Howard‘s Pavoratti, a grand summary of the life and career of the late, world-famous tenor.

I’m sure Howard will hit all the right notes, but I wonder how he’ll treat Yes, Giorgio (’82), which is about a love affair between the bearish, barrel-chested Pavoratti (more or less playing himself) and a doctor, played by the wafer-thin Kathryn Harrold.

It was the only film in which Pavoratti starred, and it became one of the biggest box-office catastrophes of all time, costing $19 million to produce and earning only $2.3 million. It’s probably a safe bet that Howard will deftly sidestep this episode, as his doc was made with the cooperation of the Pavoratti estate.

As a young-buck critic (and I realize this is a totally predictable HE observation) I remember being struck 37 years ago by the fact that Yes, Giorgio was the first mainstream Hollywood film in which a fat man played the lover of a slender hottie. This was probably a significant reason why the film didn’t work with audiences — they just couldn’t accept this as a real-life scenario. The other reason is that the Franklin Schaffner-directed romance tended to skirt the surface — it was almost all cuteness and froth. On top of which Pavoratti played a sexist, self-absorbed egotist, albeit with a gentle manner.

When in real life has a girthy, rotund fellow landed a rail-thin girlfriend or wife? Orson Welles scored with Oja Kodar, but who else?

We’re all part of this very exclusive club, basically, and we’re all getting super well paid for being these brilliant, never-miss-a-trick, cool-cat characters and generally quipping and slinking around and never, ever over-acting. We’re smug, dude, but in a cool way. We’re invested in the story, of course, but not to the point of stepping outside of our respective frosty zones. We live on one side of the screen — the inside, the side you can’t get into — and the rest of you are out there, standing in lines, paying for tickets, chewing the popcorn and losing your shit over the smallest little things. We’re not saying we’re better than you are, but maybe we are. No, take that back! We’re all together in this. Same planet, same air, same dance. Heh-heh, ahem…whatever.

From Stephen J. Whitty Facebook post about Notorious, the 1946 Hitchcock film that he screened yesterday for a class at Montclair State College, but primarily about Leopoldine Konstantin, who played Claude Rains‘ icy, watchful, hawk-like Nazi mom:

“Konstantin had been a great star in early 20th century Europe. She worked for Max Reinhardt, appeared in the original Spring Awakening and the first film version of Lola Montez. Did an American stage tour in 1911. She got married, began a family and got divorced. Hitler came to power. She left for England, and lost her son in the blitz. Eventually she came to America. With her English uncertain and her fame receding, she took a job in a factory.

“Hitchcock, meanwhile, was casting Notorious. Who to play Rains’ domineering mother? Ethel Barrymore was suggested. Mildred Natwick’s name came up. But neither seemed right. Then one of the emigre actors already cast, Reinhold Schuenzel, said, ‘Do you know the perfect actress is already here in Los Angeles? And she needs a job.’

via GIFER

“Watching the film now, it’s hard to imagine anyone else in the role.

“Her best scene comes when Rains tells her that his new wife has betrayed him. First Konstantin sits up in bed. She smiles, slightly — it is so wonderful, isn’t it, to have one’s most evil thoughts about your daughter-in-law confirmed? Then she hears her son explain the details. And, very coolly, she reaches across to her nightstand, pulls a cigarette out of a box, and lights it.

“Six times I’ve hosted this film, and every time the crowd laughs.

“And I think it’s because, in that one moment, as she stabs the cigarette into her mouth tough-guy, Jimmy-Cagney style — Konstantin has told us everything we need to know about her character. She is unromantic. She is resolute. She is a thousand times fiercer than her son, and she will do whatever it takes to protect him. All that in the lighting of a cigarette.

“This is what great actors do. They find the tiniest moment, the smallest action, and they invest it with meaning and metaphor.”

Initially posted on 7.5.15:

One of the defining moments of my early childhood — my life, really — happened when I wasn’t quite three years old. It was a late summer evening, and my mother (her name was Nancy) and I were roaming up and down the century-old boardwalk in Asbury Park, New Jersey. One of the evening’s highlights (in my mind at least) was the famous Asbury Park merry-go-round.

After going on a ride or two We gradually made our way south (or was it north?), maybe a mile or two. Then I somehow slipped my mother’s grasp and disappeared. Gone.

For the first time in my life I had decided that it would be more exciting and fulfilling to go on a solo boardwalk adventure rather than stay with mom. Hey, I was only two-something.

Nancy freaked, of course. She found a couple of cops and asked for their help. They looked, searched, asked all the merchants…no luck. They finally made their way back to the merry-go-round and there I was — staring, bedazzled.

This incident put the fear of God into both my parents. From then on they decided I had to be kept on a short leash and monitored extra carefully. The result is that I began to feel that my life was being lived in a gulag, a police state. Rules, repression, “no”, time to go to bed at dusk, “because I said so,” “you’re too young,” etc.

A vaguely similar incident happened when I was around eight. In no way traumatic but it confirmed a pattern.

It was a hot Saturday morning when I convinced my seven year-old girlfriend, also named Nancy, to go on an adventure. The idea was to stroll from Harrison Avenue in Westfield, New Jersey (our homes were 100 feet apart) to my grandparent’s home in Rahway — a distance of roughly six miles. I’d never walked it before but I had a rough idea of how to get there.

We arrived at my grandparents’ home on West Meadow Avenue around three hours later. My surprised grandmother made us a sandwich and called my parents; my mom or dad (I forget which) drove over, took us back.

If I’d been the parent I would have said to myself, “Well, my son is obviously fearless or at least not intimidated by the unknown, and doesn’t lack for initiative or a sense of adventure…qualities that will almost certainly serve him well later in life. I’ll have to tell him to be more careful, of course, but he mainly needs to be hugged and approved of and encouraged to climb new mountains.”

Instead…gulag!

In eleventh grade I began tapping out a one-page, two-sided satirical news sheet and passing it around among my friends. Silly, sophomoric, sometimes off-color stuff about school episodes, relationships and sexual stirrings. Definitely juvenile but enterprising. One of the news sheets was snagged by a vice-principal at the school, and a day or two my father and I were hauled into his office and warned about the horrors of my having passed around pornographic material.

An enlightened, forward-thinking reaction from my father would have been something along the lines of “well, that newsletter was pretty crude and low-rent, but my son’s urge to publish a newsletter and be heard is obviously strong. I just need to encourage him to channel this in a legit way. Maybe urge him to try for a journalism degree.”

Instead…shame, anger, storm clouds.