Cannes Film Festival

(I really shouldn't bring up Danis Tanović in a group like this... though I probably could.)

Well, fine then... I guess I'm genuinely curious...

I honestly don't get why people keep grouping Tanović together with some Indian actress or Meg Ryan. It makes zero sense. 😕

On a side note, I actually thought Intimacy was a fantastic movie. 🙂 🙂

Maybe you have to be a woman to truly wrap your head around it... 😉 😛 😳 🙂

Blue Eyes said:I honestly don't get why they’re grouping Tanović in the same conversation as some Bollywood starlet or Meg Ryan. It makes zero sense to me.😕

I mean, look, Steven Soderbergh was even at Cannes... but trying to lump Meg Ryan and this Indian actress together in this context is just baffling, isn't it? If the festival's whole identity is supposed to be built on these deep, "artistic" masterpieces, how does it make any sense to let a mainstream Hollywood icon and a Bollywood superstar dictate the awards process?!? I get the need for publicity—heaven knows we all love a bit of star power—but still, shouldn't there be some level of artistic integrity involved here?...🙄>

Robert Cooper41 said:I mean, Steven Soderbergh was even in the jury... but I just don't get why they'd bring in Meg Ryan and those Bollywood stars. The whole program is supposed to be focused on "art house" cinema, so how does it make sense to have a mainstream actress and a Bollywood icon deciding the awards?!? I get the need for publicity, but still... 🙄

Now you're just making excuses 😉 😛 🙂

Pale Blue Eyes said:I was reading an interview with Lars recently where he mentions she took some symbolic amount... something like ten times less than her usual per-film rate... apparently, working with Lars had always been a dream of hers ever since she saw Lomeci val.... so she agreed to the huge pay cut jedva

Man, what a total liar. Even his budget for Dancer in the Dark was like 12 million dollars 😲.

Like, what? Was he filming with 100 cameras? 500? Give me a break. A triple-sized crew would spend the whole day just doing white balance on all those rigs.🙄
The guy could probably hang out with our local directors just fine—Hey, sedlar, you seeing this? 🙂

It just goes to show that the crowd that fell for all the hype surrounding that idiot isn't any smarter than the group sitting there munching popcorn, just waiting for "the good guy to finally get his revenge on the villain"—even if they're also rooting for some cheap thrills in tight outfits (not that I have anything against the concept)...🙂 :2up:

Robert Cooper41 said:I mean, Steven Soderbergh was on the jury too... but I just don't get why they'd include Meg Ryan and those Bollywood stars. The whole program seems geared toward these high-brow "art house" films, so how does it make sense to have a mainstream actress and a massive Indian movie star deciding the awards?!? I get wanting publicity, but still... 🙄

From what I can gather, the real issue was the disastrous selection process rather than the jury itself. Besides, what's your logic for assuming that Meg Ryan or an Indian actress wouldn't be qualified to judge what they've watched? At the end of the day, everything comes down to a subjective impression anyway—unless, of course, you think they just "don't get movies," haha.

Mike Leigh mentioned in an interview once that he always used to view a jury as this untouchable authority on what's good and what isn't, at least until he actually sat in that seat himself. That’s when he realized it's really just a small group of nervous people, all stressing out over whether their decision is actually right and how much heat they're going to take for it.

Robert Cooper41 said:I’ve come to the realization that the entire issue stemmed from a catastrophic selection process rather than anything the jury actually did. I mean, really, on what possible grounds can you conclude that someone like Meg Ryan or an Indian actress wouldn't be relevant when evaluating what they've seen? It all boils down to subjective impressions anyway, doesn't it? Or perhaps—ha!—maybe they just "don't get" cinema.

When I sit down and actually look through the lineup of directors featured at this year's Sundance Film Festival, I find myself wondering if we are even talking about the same thing, because honestly, I wouldn't say the issue lies with the selection process itself—I mean, look at the names on that list! You have heavyweights like Sokurov, Eastwood, Greenaway, Haneke, van Sant, Makhmalbaf, and Ozon all sitting there in the program. How could a selection committee possibly go wrong with that kind of prestige? But then again, isn't that exactly where the trap lies? Because while these are undoubtedly massive cinematic icons, it seems to me that some of them have simply turned in mediocre work lately, haven't they? It’s a frustrating realization, really, because no matter how much talent a curator brings to the table, they can't magically breathe life into a lackluster script or a stale vision; if the quality just isn't there, the selectors are essentially powerless to fix it.
When it comes to the jury members, doesn't it just make sense that they should at least share some kind of cohesive cinematic vision? Don't get me wrong—I have absolutely nothing against seeing someone like Meg Ryan or Aishwarya Rai sitting on a jury, really, I don't... but only if the films selected for the program actually align with their specific areas of expertise! There are plenty of actors out there who dedicate themselves to championing styles of cinema completely different from their own personal work; look at Robert Redford with Sundance, or Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, or even Robert De Niro with Tribeca. That’s perfectly fine, isn't it? I doubt anyone could ever question their competence when judging films outside their usual wheelhouse. But when you start recruiting massive celebrities just for the sake of having them on the panel, aren't you essentially stripping away that "auteur/artistic" prestige that the Sundance Film Festival prides itself on representing? Perhaps this is all part of Gilles Jacob's grand design to pivot the entire profile of the festival toward a more mainstream audience... but if that's truly the goal, shouldn't we see that shift reflected in the actual selection of films first, rather than just seeing it in the names listed on the jury roster?
I was being perfectly clear regarding Danis Tanovic, and frankly, I’m still scratching my head over the whole thing... how can anyone justify picking someone who has only ever helmed one single feature film—and even that includes just ten minutes of an omnibus—to sit on a jury? It makes absolutely no sense to me, regardless of whether that one film managed to snag an Oscar or not! Shouldn't there be some semblance of a requirement for a deeper, more substantial filmography when you're appointing someone to judge the life's work of other auteurs? I mean, really, where is the standard? I certainly wouldn't go so far as to link him to Meg Ryan or Aishwarya Rai, but if we're talking about baseline competence, he's at least a step above them. 😁 😁 😁 I just felt compelled to take advantage of a perfect opening when I saw one, especially given this particular crowd, since, quite frankly, his film was an absolute disappointment.